Abstract
A major objective of 4D acquisition and processing is to maximize data repeatability. Ideally, all differences between the processed images for the base and monitor surveys should be associated with changes in reservoir conditions. In practice, however, differences in base and monitor acquisition geometry, noise, and overburden properties can also produce differences in the processed images. In this study, we simulated multi‐azimuth 4D acquisition and quantified the contributions of these factors to non‐production related differences in reservoir imaging. The simulation integrates both ray‐tracing modeling and migration so that synthetic repeatability can be directly compared with field data‐derived repeatability. The results of this work will aid in developing methods that can be used to mitigate non‐repeatability for future 4D seismic.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
