APM Welcome, APM North West Network Conference, Synergies Across Sectors
Integrating Seismic Data and Uncertainties in Facies Modeling
1. Integration of Seismic Data and
Uncertainties in the Facies Model
P. Nivlet*, S. Ng, M.A. Hetle, K. Børset, A.B. Rustad (Statoil ASA),
P. Dahle, R. Hauge & O. Kolbjørnsen (Norwegian Computing Center)
1- Classification: Internal 2010-06-10
2. Motivation: 3D reservoir modelling
Reservoir
simulations
Production data
3D reservoir model
2- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
3. The Snorre field
• Location: Blocks 34/4 and 34/7 in the
Tampen area, in the northern part of the
North Sea (191 km2)
• Production start: 1992
• Production (2009): ~180,000 bbl/day
3- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
4. Motivations: Data integration
seismic amplitudes
(angle-stacks)
Well log data 3D reservoir model
Structure, stratigraphy
4- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
5. Challenges in integrating the data
• Multi-scale issue
5- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
6. Challenges in integrating the data
Shale
2.0
Vp/Vs
Sand
1.7
6,000 10,000
AI (g/cm3.m/s)
• Non-unique relationship between seismic amplitudes and geology
• A multivariate problem
6- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
7. The data uncertainty challenge
• Random noise
• Acquisition / Processing footprint
• Angle Misalignments
• Imperfect physical model
7- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
8. Geological setting
1,000 m
•Reservoir depth: 2-2.7 km
8- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
9. Traditional workflow
Reservoir grid
(depth)
geometry
Seismic attribute
Well facies+extracted
(depth)
seismic attribute
conditioning
integration
Facies model
9- 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
10. Proposed workflow
Reservoir grid
(depth)
geometry
Seismic attribute
(depth) Well facies+extracted
seismic attribute
conditioning
integration
Facies model
10 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
11. Workflow from inversion to facies prediction
Bayesian wavelet
extraction
Seismic
modelling
Vp
Seismic facies
analysis
Vs
Seismic (partial angle-stacks)
Inversion
ρ
34/4-1
34/4-
m BCU
=
OWCLunde Increasing
probability
of shale
SN ML
SN LL Decreasing
probability
of shale
Lomvi Fm
m mBG mS mHF Facies probability
11 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
12. Geostatistical seismic inversion
• 1D modelling of seismic amplitudes (Aki&Richards’ model): linear in
m=(log(vp), log(vs), log))
d Gm n
• Normal distribution of elastic properties m
mm|d = mBG+mG*(GmG* + e )-1(d - GmBG)
m|d = m - mG*(GmG* + e )-1G m
• Data (e) stationary uncertainties estimated from analysis of amplitudes
• Prior (m) stationary uncertainties estimated from well log analysis
12 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
13. Advantages/limitations of the technique
Stationary uncertainty model:
Lateral correlations
- Global matrix
- Different stratigraphy settings - Lateral correlations
- Grid built from max. 2 horizons - Vertical correlations
13 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
14. Inversion result: Elastic properties
14 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
15. Impact on elastic parameter uncertainties
Seismic bandwidth (Near)
0 10 20 30
AI
0
Vp
Rho
-50
SI
Vs
Vp/Vs
0 20 40 60
Frequency (Hz)
Prior Posterior uncertainty Prior Posterior uncertainty
variation (%) variation AI (%)
15 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
16. Inversion results QC
Band-pass filtered
AI SI Rhob
100 ms
Well
Inversion
Multivariate correlation (RV) between band-
pass well-logs and inversion results
35% of wells RV > 0.8
33% of wells 0.8 > RV > 0.7
32% of wells RV < 0.7
16 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
17. Workflow from inversion to facies prediction
Bayesian wavelet
extraction
Seismic
modelling
Vp
Seismic facies
analysis
Vs
Seismic (partial angle-stacks)
Inversion
ρ
34/4-1
34/4-
m BCU
=
OWCLunde Increasing
probability
of shale
SN ML
SN LL Decreasing
probability
of shale
Lomvi Fm
m mBG mS mHF Facies probability
17 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
18. Supervised seismic facies analysis
Kernel
estimator
p(m | Sand)
p(Sand | m)
18 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
19. Supervised seismic facies analysis
Different resolution scales
Raw Well logs
Filtered well logs
Inversion results at well position
Inversion filtered well logs
μ m|d = μm+(I- Σm/dΣm-1)(m – μm) + e*
19 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
20. Cross plots: Inversion filtered well logs
1
2.0 2.0
Shale
Vp/Vs
Vp/Vs
Sand
1.7 1.7
0
6,000 10,000 6,000 10,000
AI (g/cm3 m/s) AI (g/cm3 m/s)
Inversion frequency filtered Predicted SAND probability
20 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
21. Seismic facies analysis: Sand probability results
Sand
probability
21 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
22. Inversion results QC: Finding optimal well
position
Confidence index (khi2):
Vertical sand proportion from well
100
ms compared with seismic sand probability
Seismic sand probability section
22 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
23. Facies probability QC
31% of wells: Good confidence
61% of wells: Medium
8% of wells: Bad confidence
23 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
24. Inversion results QC
Potential factors impacting mismatch
Stratigraphic level ++
Position with respect to OWC +
Presence of faults +
Average shale proportion +
24 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
25. 3D confidence index
• Measurement of prediction
• Weighting function in facies
modelling
1
Well Confidence
Inversion result [0,1]
0
25 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
26. Proposed workflow
Reservoir grid
(depth)
geometry
Well facies+extracted
seismic attribute
conditioning
integration
Facies model
26 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
27. Snorre: Average proportion of channel
Average map estimated from 8 realizations
1 1
0 0
27 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
28. Concluding remarks
• Integrated workflow from seismic inversion to consistent seismic constrained
facies modelling
• Fast geostatistical inversion approach and facies prediction
• Consistent resolution between inversion results and facies probabilities gives
realistic predictions and facies models
28 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
29. Concluding remarks: Further work
• How to refine the upscaling of elastic parameters from well log to seismic
scales? How to have a more local approach?
• Constraining observed 4D signals by using predicted facies sand probability
(Ayzenberg and Theune, “Stratigraphically constrained seismic 4D inversion”
M017, Room 127/128, Wednesday, 9h30)
• Flow simulations of constrained facies models and history matching with 4D for
more predictive production prognoses
29 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
30. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Statoil, Norwegian Computing Center and the
Snorre partners
Petoro, ExxonMobil Norge, Idemitsu Petroleum, RWE Dea
Norge, Total E&P Norge and Amerada Hess Norge
for discussions and permission to publish this work.
30 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010
31. Thank you
Integration of Seismic Data and Uncertainties in the
Facies Model
Philippe Nivlet
Principal Geophysicist –Petek Tyrihans
pniv@statoil.com, tel: +47 958 16 589
www.statoil.com
31 - 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition – Barcelona, June 14th-17th 2010