840 likes | 859 Views
Brad Artman. undergraduate: Colorado School of Mines, Geophysical Engineer graduate: Stanford University, Ph.D. candidate work experience: Western Atlas Logging Services, Junior Engineer U.S. Geological Survey, Visiting Scientist
E N D
Brad Artman • undergraduate: Colorado School of Mines, Geophysical Engineer • graduate: Stanford University, Ph.D. candidate • work experience: • Western Atlas Logging Services, Junior Engineer • U.S. Geological Survey, Visiting Scientist • Shell Deepwater Development Inc., Petrophysicist & Exploration Geophysicist
passive seismic imaging at Valhall Brad Artman, Stanford Exploration Project –Advanced imaging team Monday, September 27
multiple modeling in the image-space Brad Artman, Stanford Exploration Project –Advanced Imaging Team Ken Matson, Advanced Imaging Team Monday, September 27
passive seismic imaging at Valhall Brad Artman, Stanford Exploration Project –Advanced imaging team Monday, September 27
passive seismology • not event location • structural imaging • reflection seismology: subsurface investigation from the time-delayed reflections of sound off of geologic variations. • passive imaging: with no application of controlled experimental sources, a relationship between a recorded transmission wavefield and reflection wavefields is required. • requires: stationary seismometers, lots of disk space
capitalizing on ambient noise • earthquake arrivals • ocean waves • wind vibrations coupled with foundations • cultural activity • vehicle and boat traffic • drilling noise • nearby seismic acquisition
Valhall • one of the North sea giant fields • partners Amerada Hess, Shell and Total • reservoir highly porous chalk • first production 1982 • field life 2028 • field production 90,000 bpd/day • expected ultimate recovery 1,050 mm stb oil • produced to date (01.01.2003) 500 mm stb oil • remaining reserves 540 mm stb oil • high activity level – new wells & well work
Valhall Life of Field Seismic (LoFS) • Permanent field wide seismic array installed at Valhall during 2003 • 120 km seismic cables • 2414 groups of 4C sensors • Covers 45sq km • 3 seismic surveys acquired, 4th to be acquired mid-September
state of the art airgun array carried by stand-by boat – 53,000 shots per survey ~1/2 cost of LoFS installations related to the source operations
passive seismology by correlation • why image? • linearity of wavefield extrapolation • application to Valhall LoFS • why try passive seismic imaging? • future plans
transmission wavefield position(m) position(m) time (s) depth (m)
ambient noise r1 r2 r1 r2 t
ambient noise r1 r2 r1 r2 t
ambient noise r1 r2 r1 r2 t
ambient noise r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r1 r1 r2 t lag
ambient noise r1 r2 r1 r2 r1 r1 r1 r2 t twt
position(m) offset(m) 0 200 300 400 600 1200 100 0 0 0.1 5 10 lag(s) time(s) 0.3 20 25 30
position(m) offset(m) 0 200 300 600 1200 -100 100 0 0 0.1 5 10 lag(s) time(s) 0.3 20 25 30
offset(m) position(m) 0 200 -200 -100 100 600 1200 0 0 0.1 5 10 lag(s) time(s) 0.3 20 25 30
offset(m) position(m) 0 -300 -200 -100 100 600 1200 0 0 0.1 5 10 lag(s) time(s) 0.3 20 25 30 2 n long traces n short traces
passive seismology by correlation • why image? • linearity of wavefield extrapolation • application to Valhall LoFS • why try passive seismic imaging? • future plans
why image? signal/noise enhancement migrated image one correlated shot gather
T T z z + - T T z+1 z+1 flow model R D U z z z + - + R D U z+1 z+1 z+1 extrapolation correlation T= Transmission wavefield D= Source wavefield (down-going) U= Receiver wavefield (up-going) R= Total reflection data
SR Migration T T z z + - T T z+1 z+1 flow model R D U z z z + - + R D U z+1 z+1 z+1 extrapolation correlation T= Transmission wavefield D= Source wavefield (down-going) U= Receiver wavefield (up-going) R= Total reflection data
CMP Migration T T z z + - T T z+1 z+1 flow model R D U z z z + - + R D U z+1 z+1 z+1 extrapolation correlation T= Transmission wavefield D= Source wavefield (down-going) U= Receiver wavefield (up-going) R= Total reflection data
Passive Migration T T z z + - T T z+1 z+1 flow model R D U z z z + - + R D U z+1 z+1 z+1 extrapolation correlation T= Transmission wavefield D= Source wavefield (down-going) U= Receiver wavefield (up-going) R= Total reflection data
imaging advantages • poor data quality mandates imaging • transformation from transmission to reflection wavefield can be accomplished along the way • saves time • n instead of n2 traces • removes IFFT of n2 (long) traces • trace length difference ~cancels strict compute cost savings • file i/o provides big savings • 1 shot of n traces vs. n shots of n traces • multiple image-space summations
synthetic proof of concept active migration reflection gather
synthetic proof of concept passive migration correlated passive gather
passive seismology by correlation • why image? • linearity of wavefield extrapolation • application to Valhall LoFS • why try passive seismic imaging? • future plans
Depth slice near 88m Valhall data trace # energy localized around rig moveout across traces suggests surface noise
Valhall data rig activity mono-freq. boat noise Reflector?
Valhall pipe cut normalization 12km 4km
Valhall pipe cut image 12km 4km
Valhall pipe cut image 12km 4km
Valhall active seismic 12km 4km
passive seismology by correlation • why image? • linearity of wavefield extrapolation • application to Valhall LoFS • why try passive seismic imaging? • future plans
why try passive seismic imaging • understand a completely undeveloped experiment • capitalize on: • existing hardware • competitor’s sources • teleseismic & local noise • extend imaging bandwidth to lower frequencies • imaging forward scattered modes
passive seismology by correlation • why image? • linearity of wavefield extrapolation • application to Valhall LoFS • why try passive seismic imaging? • future plans
future plans • continued exploration of existing data • multi-component experiments • appropriate bandwidth parameterization • time/energy requirements • earthquake sources • rig-site continuous correlation • BP’s passive seismic imaging capabilities • file-handling infrastructure • native 3D imaging algorithms
multiple modeling in the image-space Brad Artman, Stanford Exploration Project –Advanced Imaging Team Ken Matson, Advanced Imaging Team Monday, September 27
Surface Related Multiple Elimination (SRME) • mechanics • classic shortfall • addressing the problem through imaging • shot-record imaging • multiple modeling at Maddog • implications and status
Surface Related Multiple Extraction * = = * = *
SRME s r