Modeling of the complex hydrocarbon traps by the shot domain acoustic finite difference method and data-processing

Year 2022, Volume: 168 Issue: 168, 93 - 109, 18.08.2022

Şerife Boğazkesen Hakan Karslı

https://doi.org/10.19111/bulletinofmre.985502

Abstract

Numerical modeling studies have a widespread application in exploration seismology in order to understand the seismic reflection responses of hydrocarbon traps formed in relation to tectonic structure, lithological changes and unconformities in complex geological environments and to develop effective data processing strategies. In this study, the seismic modeling of two important hydrocarbon trap models (Granite Wash and Normal Fault Trap) was performed by the Finite Difference Method (FDM), which provides the solution of the acoustic wave equation. Seismic data models were carried out in the pre-stack shot environment, and the obtained shot data were passed through appropriate data-processing stages to obtain stack and migration (zero offset) sections. By converting the obtained migration sections to depth, the spatial location and dimensions of hydrocarbon traps on the section were determined and it has been observed that they are compatible by comparing with the initial geological models. Thus, the seismic responses of hydrocarbon trap structures were learned, the importance of data processing was understood, and zero offset crosssections were obtained by processing of the generated synthetic shot records. Accordingly, it was observed that it is appropriate to make more and frequent shots in the investigation of granite wash type traps which are thin and short-width, whereas it is useful to make relatively less frequent shots in order to reduce the scattering intensity caused by the discontinuities of the fault type structures. Consequently, it is thought that before the field study for the hydrocarbon exploration, the modeling of the pre-stack shot instead of the post-stack modeling (zero offset) will contribute to the development of the data processing stages and the testing of the seismic section interpretation. In the future, such synthetic models and data processing will be developed for different complex trap structures and real data.

Keywords

Finite Difference Method, Data Processing, Hydrocarbon Traps, Seismic Modeling, Synthetic Shot.

Thanks

The authors, one of the judges, contributed to the development of the article with his constructive criticism and suggestions, Prof. Dr. Derman DONDURUR, Prof. Dr. Serkan ÖZTÜRK and another referee who did not reveal his name. In this study, Matlab code for Finite Difference Modeling of CREWES project is used for free access http://www.crewes.ucalgary.ca/).In order to process the calculated shot records, the Department of Geophysical Engineering of Karadeniz University of technology carried out academic research and use. Promax software of Landmark Graphics Co. donated by Halliburton company is used.

References

• Ahmadi, O., Juhlin, C., Malehmir, A., Munck, M. 2013. High-resolution 2D seismic imaging and forward modeling of a polymetallic sulfide deposit at Garpenberg, Central Sweden. Geophysics 78, 339–350.
• Alaei, B. 2006. Seismic Depth Imaging of Complex Structures, an example from Zagros fold thrust belt, Iran. PhD Thesis, University of Bergen.
• Alaei, B., Petersen, S. A. 2007. Geological modeling and finite difference forward realization of a regional section from the Zagros fold-and-thrust belt. Petroleum Geoscience 13, 241–251.
• Alterman, Z., Karal, F. C. 1968. Propagation of elastic waves in layered media by finite- difference methods. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58, 367-398.
• Aminzadeh, F., Brac, J., Kunz, T. 1997. SEG/EAGE 3D Modeling Series No 1. Society of Exploration Geophysicists and the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
• Bansal, R., Sen, M. K. 2008. Finite-difference modelling of S-wave splitting in anisotropic media. Geophysical Prospecting 56, 293-312.
• Biddle, K. T., Wielchowsky, C. C. 1994. Hydrocarbon Traps, Magoon, L. B., Dow, W. G. (Eds.). The Petroleum system- from source to traps. AAPG Memoir 60, 217-234.
• Blake, B., Figueroa, D., Manceda, R., Oller J., Hofland, G. 1999. 3D forward ray trace seismic modeling of strike lines in complex geology. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1871-1874.
• Bohlen, T., Müller, C. F., Milkereit, B. 2003. Elastic wave scattering from massive sulfide orebodies: on the role of composition and shape. In: Eaton, D., Milkereit, B., Salisbury, M. (Ed.), Hardrock Seismic Exploration, SEG Developments in Geophysics Series 10.
• Boore, D. M. 1970. Finite-difference solutions to the equations of elastic wave propagation, with application to Love waves over dipping interfaces. PhD Thesis, M.I.T., Claerbout, 1985.
• Carcione, J. M., Herman, G. C., Kroode, A. P. E. 2002. Seismic modeling. Geophysics 67, 1304–1325.
• Dec, T., Hein, F. J., Trotter, R. J. 1996. Granite wash alluvial fans, fan-deltas and tidal environments, northwestern Alberta: implications for controls on distribution of Devonian clastic wedges associated with the Peace River Arch. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 44 (3), 541-565.
• Etgen, J. T., O’Brien, M. J. 2007. Computational methods for large-scale 3D acoustic finite-difference modeling: a tutorial. Geophysics 72, 223–230.
• Geiger, H. D., Daley, P. F. 2003. Finite difference modelling of the full acoustic wave equation in Matlab. CREWES Research Report 15.
• Gjøystdal, H., Iversen, E., Lecomte, I., Kaschwich, T., Drottning, A., Mispel, J. 2007. Improved applicability of ray tracing in seismic acquisition, imaging, and interpretation. Geophysics 75, 261–271.
• Holberg, O. 1987. Computational aspects of the choice of operator and sampling interval for numerical differentiation in large-scale simulation of wave phenomena. Geophysical Prospecting 35, 629-655.
• Huang, Y., Lin, D., Bai, B., Roby, S., Ricardez, C. 2010. Challenges in presalt depth imaging of the deepwater Santos Basin, Brazil. The Leading Edge 29, 820–825.
• Hyne, N. J. 1984. Oil and Gas Field Classifier, Second edition. PennWell Maps Puslishing Company.
• Igel, H., Mora, P., Riollet, B. 1995. Anistotropic wave propagation through finite-difference grids. Geophysics 60, 1203–1216.
• Jinhua, Y., Tao, L., Tianyue, H. 2009. Modeling seismic wave propagation within complex structures, Applied Geophysics 6, 30-41.
• Kelly, K. R., Ward, R. W., Treitel, S., Alford, R. M. 1976. Synthetic seismograms: a finite-difference approach. Geophysics 41, 2–27.
• Krebes, E. S., Lee, L. H. T. 1994. Inhomogeneous plane waves and cylindrical waves in anisotropic anelastic media. Journal of Geophysical Research 99(23), 899-919.
• Lines, L. R., Slawinski, R., Bording, R. P. 1999. Short note: a recipe for stability of finite-difference wave- equation computations. Geophysics 64, 967-969.
• Lingrey, S. 1991. Seismic modeling of an imbricate thrust structure from the foothills of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Fagin, S. W. (Ed.). Seismic Modeling of Geologic Structures Applications to exploration Problems. Society of Exploration Geophysicists 111-125.
• Liu, Y., Sen, M. K. 2009. Advanced finite-difference methods for seismic modeling. Geohorizons, 5-16.
• Manning, P. M., Margrave, G. F. 1998. Elastic wave finite difference modelling as a practical exploration tool. CREWES Research Report. 10, 16.
• Marfurt, J. K. 1984. Accuracy of Finite-Difference and Finite Element Modeling of the Scalar and Elastic Wave Equations, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
• Margrave, G. 2003. Numerical methods of exploration seismology with algorithms in Matlab. http:// www.crewes.org/ResearchLinks/FreeSoftware/.
• Moczo, P., Robertsson, O. J. A., Eisner, L. 2007. The finite- difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation. Advances in Geophysics 48, 421-516.
• Morse, P. F., Purnell, G. W. Medwedeff, D. A. 1991. Seismic modeling of fault-related folds. Fagin, S. W. (Ed.). Seismic Modeling of Geologic Structures: Applications to Exploration Problems. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 127–152.
• Nejati, M., Hashemi, H. 2012. Migrated Exploding Reflectors in Evaluation of Finite Difference Solution for Inhomogeneous Seismic Models. Engineering 4, 950-957.
• Ottaviani, M. 1971. Elastic wave propagation in two evenly welded quarter-spaces. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 61, 1119-1152.
• Özbek, A., Vassallo, M., Özdemir, K., Van Manen, D. J., Eggenberger, K. 2010. Crossline wavefield reconstruction from multicomponent streamer data: part 2 - joint interpolation and 3D up/down separation by generalized matching pursuit. Geophysics 75, WB69–WB85.
• Robertson, J. O. A., Van Manen, D. J., Schmelzbach, C., Renterghem, C. V., Amudsen, L. 2015. Finite- difference modeling of wavefield constitutes. Geophysical Journal International 203, 1334-1342.
• Sayers, C., Chopra, S. 2009. Introduction to special section: Seismic modeling. The Leading Edge 28, 528- 529.
• Sproule, J. C. 1956. Granite wash of Northern Alberta. Journal of the Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists 4(9), 197-203.
• Talukdar, K., Behere, L. 2018. Sub-basalt imaging of hydrocarbon-bearing Mesozoic sediments using ray-trace inversion of first-arrival seismic data and elastic finite-difference full-wave modeling along Sino r– Valod profile of Deccan Syneclise, India. Pure and Applied Geophysics 175, 2931– 2954.
• TPAO (Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı). http://www. tpao.gov.tr/?mod=sektore-dair&contID=97. 25 April 2022.
• Virieux, J. 1986. P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity stress finite difference method: Geophysics 51, 889–901.
• Youzwishen, C. F., Margrave, G. F. 1999. Finite difference modelling of acoustic waves in Matlab. CREWES Research, Report No: 11.
• Zhang, H., Zhang, Y. 2007. Implicit splitting finite difference scheme for multi-dimensional wave simulation. 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2011-2014.