multicomponent seismic analysis of the roadrunner/towaoc area of the paradox basin, ute mountain ute...
Post on 28-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
MULTICOMPONENT SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ROADRUNNER/TOWAOC AREA OF THE PARADOX BASIN, UTE
MOUNTAIN UTE RESERVATION, COLORADO
Photo by C. Rebne
Paul La Pointe, Golder AssociatesClaudia Rebne, Legacy Energy
Steve Dobbs, Red Willow ProductionColby VanDenburg, Red Willow Production
Tom Davis, CSMProcessing by WesternGeco & GMGAxis
Acquisition by SolidState (Grant) & Baker-Hughes
www.fracman.com
Major Funding came from the
U. S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, & Red Willow Production
whose financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
“This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof”
“For entertainment purposes only”
Project Location
DOE Shoot – 3D9C
Northwest Extension – P wave
Honaker Trail
Honaker Trail
ismay+z
ismay+z
ismay
ismay
desert creek
desert creekIsmay -z
Ismay -z
DC +z
DC +z
HT -z
HT -z
Hovenweep
Hovenweep
0.900
1.000
cvandenb@COLBYV12/03/04 08:07:46
1087.038.0
1101.052.0
1115.066.0
1129.080.0
1134.085.0
Line:Trace:
UTE MTN UTE TRIBAL 15-43
0.900
1.000
5.0774.7724.4684.1633.8593.5543.2492.9452.6402.3352.0311.7261.4221.1170.8120.5080.203-0.102-0.406-0.711-1.015-1.320-1.625-1.929-2.234-2.539-2.843-3.148-3.452-3.757-4.062-4.366-4.671-5.077
WINTERSHALL O&G CO
ROADRUNNER #23-21
5,997
0 200
GR [GAPI]
7 20
CAL [IN]
100 40
DT [US/F]
0.3 -0.1
DPHI [V/V]
0.3 -0.1
NPHI [V/V]
1 10000
MSFL [OHMM]
1 10000
LLD [OHMM]
1 10000
LLS [OHMM]
UI
UITZUIMA
UIC
HOVLILIAB
GTHC
UDC
AKAHCR
5625
5650
5675
5700
5725
5750
5775
5800
5825
5850
5875
5900
5925
5950
5975
UI
UITZUIMA
UIC
HOVLILIAB
GTHC
UDC
AKAHCR
RelDepth
RelDepth
-100 -100
-75 -75
-50 -50
-25 -25
0 0
25 25
50 50
75 75
100 100
125 125
150 150
175 175
200 200
225 225
250 250
275 275
300 300
Ute Mountain Ute Reservation
HS=1
NW SE
PETRA 12/3/2004 8:17:54 AM
Upper IsmayTransition zone
Massive anhydrite
Carbonate
Hovenweep shaleLower Ismay
Carbonate
Gothic shale
Desert CreekAnhydriteCabonate/shale
Chimney Rock shaleAkah
2-W
ay
Tim
e
TD = 5997’
Honaker Trail
Honaker Trail
ismay+z
ismay+z
ismay
ismay
desert creek
desert creekIsmay -z
Ismay -z
DC +z
DC +z
HT -z
HT -z
Hovenweep
Hovenweep
0.900
1.000
cvandenb@COLBYV12/03/04 08:07:46
1087.038.0
1101.052.0
1115.066.0
1129.080.0
1134.085.0
Line:Trace:
UTE MTN UTE TRIBAL 15-43
0.900
1.000
5.0774.7724.4684.1633.8593.5543.2492.9452.6402.3352.0311.7261.4221.1170.8120.5080.203-0.102-0.406-0.711-1.015-1.320-1.625-1.929-2.234-2.539-2.843-3.148-3.452-3.757-4.062-4.366-4.671-5.077
WINTERSHALL O&G CO
ROADRUNNER #23-21
5,997
0 200
GR [GAPI]
7 20
CAL [IN]
100 40
DT [US/F]
0.3 -0.1
DPHI [V/V]
0.3 -0.1
NPHI [V/V]
1 10000
MSFL [OHMM]
1 10000
LLD [OHMM]
1 10000
LLS [OHMM]
UI
UITZUIMA
UIC
HOVLILIAB
GTHC
UDC
AKAHCR
5625
5650
5675
5700
5725
5750
5775
5800
5825
5850
5875
5900
5925
5950
5975
UI
UITZUIMA
UIC
HOVLILIAB
GTHC
UDC
AKAHCR
RelDepth
RelDepth
-100 -100
-75 -75
-50 -50
-25 -25
0 0
25 25
50 50
75 75
100 100
125 125
150 150
175 175
200 200
225 225
250 250
275 275
300 300
Ute Mountain Ute Reservation
HS=1
NW SE
PETRA 12/3/2004 8:17:54 AM
Upper IsmayTransition zone
Massive anhydrite
Carbonate
Hovenweep shaleLower Ismay
Carbonate
Gothic shale
Desert CreekAnhydriteCabonate/shale
Chimney Rock shaleAkah
2-W
ay
Tim
e
TD = 5997’
Lithostratigraphy & Seismic Picks
WintershallUte Mtn Tribal 14-14
14-33.5N-20W
Upper Ismay
Hovenweep
Lower Ismay
Desert Creek
Chimney Rock
Ismay Shale
Gothic
Ismay Peak
HovenweepTrough
Desert CreekPeak
Above Ismay Zero Crossing
P- Wave Interpretation
• Two vendors and three versions for processing
• WesternGeco carried out two processing versions, W1 & W2
• W1 uses Random Noise Attenuation
• W2 no RNA, instead, Spectral Whitening
• GMGAxis produced P-Wave volume as part of anisotropy analysis.
W1 – Random Noise Attenuation
South North
Ismay
DesertCreek
Inline 1104
Ismay – Desert Creek Isochron
South North
Ismay
DesertCreek
W2 – Spectral Whitening
Ismay – Desert Creek Isochron
GMGAxis
Ismay – Desert Creek Isochron
South North
Ismay
DesertCreek
Inline 1080
Which Processing to Choose?
We looked at non-parametric correlations and univariate regressions to see which processing picks corresponded best with lithostratigraphic horizons and isopachs as picked from well logs.
46 100.0% 0 .0% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
42 91.3% 4 8.7% 46 100.0%
40 87.0% 6 13.0% 46 100.0%
27 58.7% 19 41.3% 46 100.0%
41 89.1% 5 10.9% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
42 91.3% 4 8.7% 46 100.0%
42 91.3% 4 8.7% 46 100.0%
36 78.3% 10 21.7% 46 100.0%
18 39.1% 28 60.9% 46 100.0%
24 52.2% 22 47.8% 46 100.0%
24 52.2% 22 47.8% 46 100.0%
25 54.3% 21 45.7% 46 100.0%
28 60.9% 18 39.1% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
39 84.8% 7 15.2% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
39 84.8% 7 15.2% 46 100.0%
37 80.4% 9 19.6% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
46 100.0% 0 .0% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
46 100.0% 0 .0% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0%
46 100.0% 0 .0% 46 100.0%
TD
IS_MA
MA
UIC
LIS
IS_DC
IS_GTH
IS_UIC
UICPLIS
MARUIC
UICRMA
CUM_OIL
EUR_GAS
EUR_OIL
EUR_BOE
NET_PAY
AX_AI_AZ
AX_AI
AX_DCP
AX_DC_MS
AX_I_AMP
AX_IP
AX_IP_DC
AX_IZ
A_IZ_DCP
AX_I_DC
AX_MS
W1_DC_MS
W1_AI_IZ
W1_AI
W1_DCP
W1E_IP_D
W1_IZ
W1_I_AMP
W1_IP
W1_IP_DC
W1_IZ_DC
W1_I_DC
W1_MS
W2_I_AMP
W2_IP_DC
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Included Excluded Total
Cases
We looked at a host of variables: seismic picks and isochrons; lithostratigraphic picks and isopachs; production variables.
The Western 1 processing had the best predictive power for the lithostratigraphy.
y = 11.682x - 48.532
R2 = 0.8807
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Ismay Peak - Desert Creek Peak Isochron (ms)
Ism
ay
- D
ese
rt C
ree
k I
so
pa
ch
(ft
))
An Example Regression
Ismay – Desert Creek isopach thicknessvs.
Ismay – Desert Creek isochron regression, WesternGeco 1.
A first series of lithostratigraphic maps were produced using the W1 regressions
Ismay Peak - Desert Creek Peak Isochron Map
Another series of maps were produced using multivariate regressions informed by PCA
n 23 (cases excluded: 23 due to missing values)
R2 0.91Adjusted R2 0.88
SE 6.7596
Term Coefficient SE p 95% CI of Coefficient
Intercept 223.1948 1.5245 <0.0001 219.9785 to 226.4111EVC5 -3.5089 1.6378 0.0469 -6.9644 to -0.0534EVC4 4.3422 1.5395 0.0118 1.0941 to 7.5903EVC3 -0.9308 1.5553 0.5574 -4.2122 to 2.3506EVC2 9.0057 1.4767 <0.0001 5.8901 to 12.1214EVC1 -16.0134 1.5674 <0.0001 -19.3204 to -12.7065
Source of variation SSq DF MSq F p
Due to regression 7548.889 5 1509.778 33.04 <0.0001About regression 776.763 17 45.692
Total 8325.652 22
Factors 1, 2 and 4 are most significant for the regression concerning the stratigraphic thickness from the Ismay to the Desert Creek. Loadings for Factor 1 are negative, and for factors 2 and 4 it is positive. This means that the stratigraphic interval thickens when the depth to the Desert Creek datum is shallower, the interval below the Desert Creek to the Mississippian is thicker, and the Ismay to Desert Creek isochron is thickest.
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
190 210 230 250 270
Predicted Y
IS_D
C
Component Plot in Rotated Space
ax_dcpax_ai
w1_dcp
w1_ipw1_izw1_aiax_izax_ip
ax_i_dcax_ip_dc
ax_msComponent 2
a_iz_dcp
w1_ai_iz
1.01.0
w2_i_amp
-.5
0.0
w1_ms
w1_i_amp
.5.5
.5
1.0 w1_iz_dcw1_i_dcw1_ip_dcw1e_ip_d
ax_i_amp
Component 3Component 1
0.00.0
w2_ip_dc
ax_dc_msax_ai_az
w1_dc_ms
-.5-.5
Ismay Peak - Desert Creek Peak Isochron Map
Multivariate Regression Map – Is it any better?
To answer this question, the real issue is not that one method or the other predicts lithostratigraphy, but whether it predicts productivity.
n 22 (cases excluded: 24 due to missing values)
R2 0.13Adjusted R2 -0.14
SE 142888.8320
Term Coefficient SE p 95% CI of Coefficient
Intercept 205804.1157 47412.5938 0.0005 105293.9173 to 306314.3140EVC1 -27032.8238 34962.4535 0.4507 -101149.9065 to 47084.2590EVC2 2969.4694 48714.2640 0.9521 -100300.1462 to 106239.0849EVC3 47537.4397 43107.5066 0.2864 -43846.3825 to 138921.2618EVC4 -13604.8671 37474.1383 0.7213 -93046.4832 to 65836.7490EVC5 -24754.9270 41008.1478 0.5545 -111688.3077 to 62178.4536
Source of variation SSq DF MSq F p
Due to regression ############# 5 9920358178.613 0.49 0.7819About regression ############# 16 #############
Total ############# 21
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Predicted Y
EU
R_B
OE
On first glance, the statistical analysis says that seismic variables do a poor job of predicting total EUR. But a closer look reveals more promise.
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Predicted Total EUR (BOE)
Est
imat
ed T
ota
l EU
R (
BO
E)
Upper Envelope
Lower Envelope
Outliers
Linear (Upper Envelope)
Linear (Lower Envelope)
The Upper Trend group has a much thicker anhydrite section and a thicker section between the top of the Ismay and the Upper Ismay carbonate. Also, the wells belonging to the Upper Trend group have much higher productivity, but oddly, lower net pay.
There are actually two trends
n Mean SD SE 95% CI of Mean Median IQR 95% CI of MedianIS_MA by Group - l 9 24.778 4.6037 1.5346 21.239 to 28.317 24.000 7.000 20.000 to 27.000
IS_MA by Group - o 4 33.500 19.2267 9.6134 2.906 to 64.094 26.000 29.500 - to -IS_MA by Group - u 9 27.889 13.6056 4.5352 17.431 to 38.347 24.000 7.000 20.000 to 34.000
MA by Group - l 9 24.444 19.8186 6.6062 9.211 to 39.678 9.000 32.000 7.000 to 41.000MA by Group - o 4 29.500 21.5484 10.7742 -4.788 to 63.788 27.500 38.000 - to -MA by Group - u 9 33.000 19.8557 6.6186 17.738 to 48.262 41.000 32.000 7.000 to 54.000UIC by Group - l 9 53.444 42.3294 14.1098 20.907 to 85.982 79.000 79.000 0.000 to 97.000
UIC by Group - o 4 45.000 40.7513 20.3756 -19.844 to 109.844 50.000 64.000 - to -UIC by Group - u 9 64.556 33.9415 11.3138 38.466 to 90.645 79.000 29.000 21.000 to 97.000LIS by Group - l 9 39.556 31.4130 10.4710 15.409 to 63.702 54.000 70.000 0.000 to 70.000
LIS by Group - o 4 42.250 30.7720 15.3860 -6.715 to 91.215 49.500 37.250 - to -LIS by Group - u 9 51.778 23.3119 7.7706 33.859 to 69.697 54.000 30.000 38.000 to 70.000
IS_DC by Group - l 9 162.889 122.8825 40.9608 68.433 to 257.345 234.000 259.000 0.000 to 259.000IS_DC by Group - o 4 64.750 129.5000 64.7500 -141.313 to 270.813 0.000 194.250 - to -IS_DC by Group - u 9 191.667 109.5742 36.5247 107.441 to 275.893 234.000 38.000 0.000 to 259.000IS_Gth by Group - l 9 192.556 13.4174 4.4725 182.242 to 202.869 187.000 28.000 182.000 to 210.000
IS_Gth by Group - o 4 188.000 15.3406 7.6703 163.590 to 212.410 182.500 26.500 - to -IS_Gth by Group - u 9 194.000 15.4353 5.1451 182.135 to 205.865 187.000 28.000 178.000 to 210.000IS_UIC by Group - l 9 49.222 20.2100 6.7367 33.687 to 64.757 36.000 25.000 31.000 to 61.000
IS_UIC by Group - o 4 63.000 37.0495 18.5248 4.046 to 121.954 50.000 64.000 - to -IS_UIC by Group - u 9 60.889 28.0421 9.3474 39.334 to 82.444 61.000 25.000 31.000 to 90.000
UIC&LIS by Group - l 9 93.000 72.5500 24.1833 37.233 to 148.767 149.000 149.000 0.000 to 151.000UIC&LIS by Group - o 4 87.250 70.2205 35.1102 -24.486 to 198.986 100.000 100.750 - to -UIC&LIS by Group - u 9 116.333 54.8521 18.2840 74.170 to 158.496 149.000 61.000 61.000 to 151.000
MA/UIC by Group - l 6 0.470 0.3863 0.1577 0.065 to 0.876 0.519 0.335 0.072 to 1.120MA/UIC by Group - o 3 1.088 1.2957 0.7481 -2.130 to 4.307 0.519 1.198 - to -MA/UIC by Group - u 8 0.739 0.8094 0.2862 0.062 to 1.416 0.519 0.562 0.072 to 2.571
n Mean SD SE 95% CI of Mean Median IQR 95% CI of Median
Cum_Oil by Group - l 8 201,725 158,240 55,946 69,433 334,017 188,570 221,128 3,407 478,246Cum_Oil by Group - o 2 127,586 91,425 64,647 -693,832 949,004 127,586 0 - to -Cum_Oil by Group - u 5 352,012 293,521 131,267 -12,442 716,467 297,267 58,554 - to -EUR_Gas by Group - l 9 285 120 40 192 377 304 67 226 377
EUR_Gas by Group - o 4 324 320 160 -185 833 244 567 - to -EUR_Gas by Group - u 8 462 183 65 309 615 470 199 125 750
Eur_Oil by Group - l 9 171,474 148,529 49,510 57,304 285,643 117,200 158,100 54,400 305,000Eur_Oil by Group - o 4 153,345 158,593 79,296 -99,012 405,701 108,800 268,356 - to -Eur_Oil by Group - u 8 216,763 99,059 35,023 133,947 299,578 228,300 129,100 40,400 339,100
EUR_BOE by Group - l 9 181,956 110,676 36,892 96,882 267,029 155,900 146,800 97,800 289,900EUR_BOE by Group - o 4 199,575 204,003 102,001 -125,039 524,189 143,650 349,375 - to -EUR_BOE by Group - u 9 285,144 112,771 37,590 198,461 371,828 271,300 89,900 216,100 399,500
Net_Pay by Group - l 9 1.677 1.349 0.450 0.639 2.714 1.013 2.273 0.466 3.105Net_Pay by Group - o 3 3.678 1.160 0.670 0.797 6.559 4.308 1.024 - to -Net_Pay by Group - u 8 1.285 0.658 0.233 0.735 1.836 1.269 1.381 0.584 2.124
TD by Group - l 9 6,060 20 7 6,044 6,075 6,060 11 6,028 6,071TD by Group - o 4 6,022 51 26 5,941 6,103 6,024 85 - to -TD by Group - u 9 6,051 37 12 6,022 6,079 6,071 43 6,028 6,071
Descriptive Statistical Summaries for the 2 Trends
In summary, we have been doing both conventional interpretation and a bit of statistical torturing to the P-Wave data, and are seeing some interesting results.
Rich Van Dok of WesternGeco will review the just-finished PS and SS wave processing
D.O.E. Roadrunner 3D/9C
for Red Willow Production Co.
& Golder Associates
DOE Award Number: DE-FG26-02NT15451
Processing Update – CSM RCP Meeting
March 17, 2005
Rich Van Dok, Guillermo Caro
WesternGeco - Denver
Survey Location
3D/9C Seismic Survey
Source and Receiver Locations
S-wave Survey
RECEIVER LINES
SOURCE LINES
GEOPHONE ORIENTATION
S-WAVE SOURCE ORIENTATION*
* OCCASIONALLY REVERSED DEPENDING ON DIRECTION OF TRUCK
Summary
• P-wave processing– Conventional KPSTM flow (azimuthally isotropic)
• PS-wave processing– CCP binning/post-stack time migration– Limited-azimuth volumes
• Azimuthal anisotropy (splitting) analysis• SS-wave processing
– Sh-Sh for statics and velocity– Azimuthal anisotropy (splitting) analysis
Typical Shot Record: P source – Z detector
Brute Stack: P source – Vertical component
DMO Stack: P source – Vertical component
Final Migration: P source – Vertical component
Displayed at final datum
WesternGeco P-wave Data Version 1Inline 1104
South North
Ismay
DesertCreek
WesternGeco P-wave Data Version 1Ismay - Desert Creek Isochron (Red = 25 ms, Blue = 20 ms)
Inline 1104
Typical Shot Record: P source – Radial component
Typical Shot Record: P source – Transverse component
Brute Stack: P source – Radial component
Final Migration/FXY Dcn: P source – Radial component
Final Migration Comparison: PP to PS
R
TN
N0º
E
N45ºE
N90ºEN135ºE
N270ºE
N180ºE
N225ºE
N315ºE
Source to Receiver Azimuth Limitation
PS Input to 2Cx2C Layer Stripping
RADIAL COMPONENT (0º-360º) TRANSVERSE COMPONENT (0º-360º)
LAYER
1LA
YER 2
S-wave Birefringence: Layer 1
S-wave Birefringence: Layer 2
Shot Record: Trans source – Trans detector
Component used for initial statics and velocity work
Source and Receiver Static Corrections
S-WAVEP-WAVE
Comments/Conclusions
• P-wave amplitudes show algal mound structure• PS-wave resolution very good
– General event calibration good– Algal mound structure apparent
• PS-wave azimuthal anisotropy analysis shows small, but measurable effect– Possible correlation to general structure in overburden
(?)– Reservoir level shows little anisotropy
• SS-wave refraction statics solution resonable compared to PP
top related