Cited by 90Seismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsSeismic Waves and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Repeatability analysis of land time-lapse seismic data: CO2CRC Otway pilot project case study

Pevzner, Roman, Shulakova, Valeriya, Kepic, Anton, Urosevic, Milovan·2011·Geophysical Prospecting

Abstract

Time-lapse seismics is the methodology of choice for remotely monitoring changes in oil/gas reservoir depletion, reservoir stimulation or CO2 sequestration, due to good sensitivity and resolving power at depths up to several kilometres. This method is now routinely applied offshore, however, the use of time-lapse methodology onshore is relatively rare. The main reason for this is the relatively high cost of commercial seismic acquisition on land. A widespread belief of a relatively poor repeatability of land seismic data prevents rapid growth in the number of land time-lapse surveys. Considering that CO2 sequestration on land is becoming a necessity, there is a great need to evaluate the feasibility of time-lapse seismics for monitoring. Therefore, an understanding of the factors influencing repeatability of land seismics and evaluating limitations of the method is crucially important for its application in many CO2 sequestration projects. We analyse several repeated 2D and 3D surveys acquired within the Otway CO2 sequestration pilot project (operated by the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Technologies, CO2CRC) in Australia, in order to determine the principal limitations of land time-lapse seismic repeatability and investigate the influence of the main factors affecting it. Our findings are that the intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio (S/N, signal to coherent and background noise levels) and the normalized-root-mean-square (NRMS) difference are controlled by the source strength and source type. However, the post-stack S/N ratio and corresponding NRMS residuals are controlled mainly by the data fold. For very high-fold data, the source strength and source type are less critical.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00907.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Al-Jabri Y.Y.M. Urosevic M. Sherlock D. 2008 The effect of corrugated lime-stone and the changing of the near surface conditions on CO 2 monitoring program at Naylor-1, CO2CRC Otway Project, Victoria, Australia st 2 A12 · DOI
  2. Aritman, 2001, Repeatability study of seismic source signatures, Geophysics, 66, 1811, 10.1190/1.1487123 · DOI
  3. Bakulin A. Lopez J. Herhold I.S. Mateeva A. 2007 Onshore monitoring with virtual-source seismics in horizontal wells: Challenges and solutions th 2893 2897 · DOI
  4. Beaty, 2003, Repeatability of multimode Rayleigh-wave dispersion studies, Geophysics, 68, 782, 10.1190/1.1581031 · DOI
  5. Calvert, 2005, Insights and Methods for 4D Reservoir Monitoring and Characterization, 10.1190/1.9781560801696 · DOI
  6. Dodds, 2009, Developing a monitoring and verification plan with reference to the Australian Otway CO2 pilot project, The Leading Edge, 28, 812, 10.1190/1.3167783 · DOI
  7. Eiken O. Brevik I. Arts R. Lindeberg E. Fagervik K. 2000 Seismic monitoring of CO 2 injected into a marine aquifer th 1623 1626 · DOI
  8. Hatton, 1986, Seismic Data Processing: Theory and Practice
  9. Isaac, 2006, A case history of time-lapse 3D seismic surveys at Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada, Geophysics, 71, B93, 10.1190/1.2211027 · DOI
  10. Kragh, 2002, Seismic repeatability, normalized rms and predictability, The Leading Edge, 21, 640, 10.1190/1.1497316 · DOI
  11. Landrø, 1999, Repeatability issues of 3-D VSP data, Geophysics, 64, 1673, 10.1190/1.1444671 · DOI
  12. Lumley, 2001, Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring, Geophysics, 66, 50, 10.1190/1.1444921 · DOI
  13. Malme, 2005, Overburden distortions - Implications for seismic AVO analysis and time-lapse seismics, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 2, 81, 10.1088/1742-2132/2/2/001 · DOI
  14. Meunier, 2001, Reservoir monitoring using permanent sources and vertical receiver antennae: The Cere-la-Ronde case study, The Leading Edge, 20, 622, 10.1190/1.1439008 · DOI
  15. Rossi, 2008, CO2 storage at the Aztbach-Schwanenstadt gas field: A seismic monitoring feasibility study, First Break, 26, 45, 10.3997/1365-2397.26.1115.27804 · DOI
  16. Schisselé E. Forgues E. Echappé J. Meunier J. De Pellegars O. Hubans C. 2009 Seismic repeatability: Is there a limit? st V021 · DOI
  17. Vandeweijer V.P. Benedictus T. Winthaegen P.L.A. Bergen F. 2009 To a cost effective approach for monitoring CO 2 storage sites st P108 · DOI
  18. Vedanti, 2009, Seismic inversion tracks in situ combustion: A case study from Balol oil field, India, Geophysics, 74, B103, 10.1190/1.3129262 · DOI
  19. Waite, 1997, Seismic monitoring of the Duri steamflood: Application to reservoir management, The Leading Edge, 16, 1275, 10.1190/1.1437780 · DOI
  20. Yun L. Xuri H. Jun G. Deshen S. Jixiang L. 2007 Land time-lapse seismic processing techniques with nonrepeatability factors th 2999 3003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 90

Metadata

Authors
Pevzner, R., Shulakova, V., Kepic, A., & Urosevic, M.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Pevzner, Roman
Venue
Geophysical Prospecting
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-13
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
66-77
ISSN
0016-8025 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1580425928
Cited by
90
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Geophysical Prospecting (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Seismic Waves and Analysis
Keywords
time-lapse seismic, land seismic, repeatability, CO2 sequestration, signal-to-noise ratio, source types, CO2 monitoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review