Summary: FORCE Deep Water Seismic Challenges Seminar

By John Hughes, FORCE Seismic Methods Work Group Leader 18th September 2003

 

The FORCE Seismic Methods Work Group organised a “Deep Water Seismic Challenges” Seminar hosted by the NPD on 18th September 2003. The seminar was a great success with a variety of contributions from oil and gas companies, contractors and academia. Special mention is due to all the contributors, the NPD for hosting the event and the Steering Committee of Gerd Kleemeyer (Lead, Shell), Einar Kjos (BP), Louis Hebert (ChevronTexaco), and Ole Næss (Statoil). Outlined below is a summary of the seminar, for details of individual contributions please look for the presentations on the FORCE web page.

 

Three principal themes were evident:

  1. Improving the seismic image
  2. Analysis of hydrocarbon and lithology indicators
  3. Cost constraints

 

1.      Improving the Seismic Image

This included a variety of technologies, but for the Norwegian Sea deep-water areas removing the damaging affects of water layer multiples and diffracted multiple energy is highlighted as the principal deep water seismic challenge.

 

It is convenient to break “improving the seismic image” into three sub-categories: (a) acquisitions, (b) processing, and (c) Analysis of DHI’s and Lithological Responses:

 

a)      Acquisitions

Seismic acquisition techniques described were largely geared to improve signal to noise (mostly through appropriate data acquisition for multiple attenuation) and improving resolution. Methods described included high density 3D data acquisitions for higher fold and reduced cross line aliasing, wide towed streamers appropriate for 3D SRME de-multiple, multi-azimuth acquisition for improved illumination, and OBC techniques notably for Pz summation multiple attenuation. Mark Thompson of Statoil laid down an intriguing challenge for research and development groups to develop methods to measure vertical pressure gradients or particle motion with towed streamers to enable de-multiple through Pz summation rather than more costly OBC deployment.

 

b)      Processing

A key point in the data processing world is the step change impact enabled by modern clustered parallel computing facilities which have enabled 3D de-multiple and depth migration codes to be affordable. Key advances in demultiple techniques included:

·        2D and notably 3D SRME (as demonstrated by the successful Magic3D application by Shell at Ormen Lange).

·        3D Wavefield extrapolation de-multiple (a complementary and intriguing alternative to 3D SRME applied by BP at Ormen Lange)

·        Data “Friendly” demultiple methods such as designature de-multiple.

·        SRME for OBC data

There was also interesting discussion on the appropriate use of SRME, radon and DIMAT from CGG.

 

Fred Herkenhoff of ChevronTexaco presented an optimum amplitude preserving processing sequence and a very enlightening view of the lack of repeatability in amplitude preservation between of 6 contractors processing of a seismic line from offshore Australia. This strongly re-enforced the importance of quality control procedures and proper collaboration between customer and contractor – a clear challenge under the cost and resource constraints prevalent in the industry today.

 

Pre-stack depth migration is a key deep-water seismic challenge in many parts of the world notably in sub-salt environments including as seen in West Africa and the Gulf of Mexico. An example from West Africa presented by Total stressed the importance of using the optimum Kirchoff algorithm and use of tomography as a best practice in velocity model building.

It should not be overlooked that pre-stack depth migration is also an important step in areas of mid Norway with complex overburdens – this was a critical additional step to Magic 3D in Shell’s processing at Ormen Lange.

 

2.      Analysis of hydrocarbon and lithology indicators

Once the seismic data has passed through the optimum data acquisition and processing steps, as described above, the next step is interpretation and analysis. The analysis of seismic amplitudes for fluid and lithological discrimination was also a significant theme at the seminar. Topics discussed included:

 

a)      Pz summation of OBC data to remove flat multiple events and reduce the risk of improper identification of fluid contact related flat spots.

b)      Use of long offset data  was advocated for lithology discrimination and inversion techniques.

c)      EM methods were described by EMGS, which provide resistivity based information for fluid type discrimination independent of seismic amplitudes and thus add an extra parameter to reduce uncertainty in this non-unique process.

 

3.      Cost

Cost is a major hurdle for application of many of the deep-water seismic technologies as the oil and gas industry continues to reduce expenditures. However we should be encouraged by successful case examples presented at the seminar which clearly demonstrate considerable added value through techniques such as 3D de-multiple, 3D pre-stack depth migration and recent advances in seismic acquisition such as OBC methods, wide towed streamers, long offset data and high density 3D. Success has also been shown with non-seismic methods such as the recent developments in EM seabed logging. All of these require expenditure over and above what is generally accepted as “standard”. It is therefore a critical challenge for all of us involved in geophysical work in deep water areas to demonstrate the value of these technologies to the decision makers within the oil and gas industry.