Program Studi

Physiography of Teknik
IndonesiaGeologi Dr. Ir. Eko Widianto, MT, IPU
FakultasTeknologi Kebumian dan Energi Semester Ganjil_2018 - 2019
UniversitasTrisakti
 LECTURE MATERIALS
1 • INTRODUCTION: Definition, Level Petroleum Investigation, Role of Geophysical Methods

2 • Review of Gravity Method

3 • Paradigm Shift in Gravity Data Utilization
4 • Gravity Data analysis for Oil and Gas Exploration
5 • Gravity Data analysis for Reservoir Monitoring
6 • Fundamental of Seismic Method
7 • Seismic Acquisition
8 • Seismic Processing
9 • Seismic Structural Interpretation
10 • Seismic Stratigraphic Interpretation
11 • Seismic Interpretation Exercise (2X)
2
1. Introduction
2. Problem Statement
3. Time-lapse Microgravity Technology
a. Theoretical Background
b. Feasibility Study
c. Gravity Inversion
d. Fluid Change Modeling
e. Fluid Movement Direction
4. Case Study

4
1. Introduction
1. Recently significant declined of oil and gas production relates to
natural condition of the reservoir happened in over the world.
2. In order to increase total oil production not only exploring the
new area but also applying latest technology have been
implemented in mature fields. New prospective technology have
been tested and applied to estimate the dynamic state of
reservoir properties.
3. The 4D microgravity method combined with existing seismic
data already applied in several oil fields in Indonesia.
Experience in these fields gave a better understanding of the
reservoir model.
4. The 4D microgravity method has some advantages compare
with other method in term of less time consuming, repeatability,
environmentally friendly and less cost.
5
 • EXPLORATION
1st EXPLORATION
PHASE

• DELINEATION
2nd

• DEVELOPMENT
3rd DEVELOPMENT
& PRODUCTION
PHASE
• PRODUCTION
4th

6
Saputelli et al, 2004

7
 Evergreen
flow model
Petrophysicist Mathematician,
Reservoir Eng.
Geologist

4D, well
sensors, Decide if
Input Production on track?
Data Asset Manager

Seismologist,
Microseismologist, Driller
Microgravitist Well control,
sweep
management
Output

FIELD
$

MANAGEMENT
Modified from: Calvert, 2008
Build reservoir model
accurately

Monitor and image the

dynamic properties of
reservoir until field
termination

Optimize production

Improve Recovery Factor

What dynamic Compartmentalization
changes of
reservoir Pressure changes
properties do Phase changes
we want to
predict using
Reservoir connectivity
time-lapse Permeability
technology? Porosity
Areal extent of the trap
Bypass Oil
Well deliverability
Multi-diciplin approach for reservoir model
Geomechanical Fluid
Data Data

Geomechanical Fluid Production

Petrophysical Model Model Logging
Data
Data

Petrophysical Production
Logging
Model Model

RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR
Geochemical MODEL
MODEL Tracer
Data Geochemical Tracer
Model Data
Model

Geophysical Well test

Model Model

Geological
Model

Geophysical Well test

Data Data
Geological Data
12
 Time-lapse Technology
1. Reservoir management demands and economic benefits have been
the drivers for development of the technology to detect time-lapse
anomaly from successive geophysical surveys.

2. Time-lapse or 4-D geophysical surveys use to measure production and

reservoir properties periodically during the life of the reservoir.
Observed changes assist in the characterization of the reservoir.

3. Time-lapse surveys may indicate the presence of barriers to reservoir

connectivity, changes in reservoir saturation and pressure.

1. Applications of time-lapse technology now span the life of the

reservoir, from initial production to identify pressure cells through mid-
field life monitoring of waterflood fronts to late-field life where the
primary driver is identifying bypassed oil to extend economic recovery.

(Stephen Pickering, 2006)

13
The Objective of Time-lapse Study
 To understand the reservoir heterogeneity
 To delineate fault structure and
compartmentalization
 To identify of by-passed oil
 To understand of injection impact on
production
• Lateral movement of injected water
• Water front of injected water
• Reposition of injectors (if necessary)
• To locate the additional injectors
 To helps upgrade reservoir models
14
1 • Optimizing Existing Production wells

2 • Pressure Maintenance

3 • Optimizing Injection and production wells

4 • Re-opening and drilling bypassed oil

5 • Improve Recovery Factor

4D Reservoir Monitoring (x,y,z,t)
A Paradigm Shift in Production Management

Integration of Disparate Data (Kinds & Scales)

– Cased Hole Logs

– Production Histories

– Pressures & Temperatures

– Monitoring

– Borehole Seismic

– Remote Sensing
1 • Seismic
2 • Microgravity
3 • Electromagnetic
4 • Compaction monitoring
5 • Well temperature monitoring
6 • Tracer
7 • Combination
Calvert, 2005
18
Calvert, 2005
19
Calvert, 2005
20
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/4d4/what-is.html
 THE PARADIGM SHIFT IN GRAVITY DATA UTILIZATION
BY USING THE HIGHER RESOLUTION OF GRAVITY DATA
PLAY PROSPECT PROSPECT RESOURCES RESERVOIR
GRAVITY DATA IDENTIFICATION CAPTURE EVALUATION APPRAISAL MANAGEMENT

GRAVITY Isostatic residual Semiregional Detailed, integrated Integrated 3D Integrated

UTILIZATION Regional tectonic structural / 2D / 3D modeling rock properties reservoir
analisis stratiigraphic (with seismic and velocity characterization
Basin and modeling horizons, density, modeling
depocenter Target-spesific and velocity Integrated depth Borehole gravity
enhancement enhancements information) migration (pre-or
Regional Layer stripping for Porosity / pressure poststack) Time-lapse
modeling improved prediction Borehole gravity- precision
Digital data delineation of Salt edge / base remote porosity
gravity ,
integration exploration targets determination detection
(with remote Sensitivity studies Enhanced velocity Detection of including for
sensing, etc) tied to density and analysis shallow hazards Carbon Storage
lithology Monitoring

GRAVITY 1 – 5 mGal 0.2 – 1 mGal 0.1 – 0.5 mGal 0.1 – 0.5 mGal 0.02 – 0.1 mGal
RESOLUTION 2 – 20 km 1 – 5 km 0.5 – 2 km 0.2 – 1 km 1 – 5 years
REQUIRED * wavelength wavelength wavelength wavelength
Continental grids, Conventional marine High-resolution 0.01 – 0.005 mGal
satelite gravity, and land surveys land and marine (borehole)
airborne gravity surveys High-resolution
land, marine,
and gradiometer
surveys

Modified from Gibson, R.I. & Millegan, P.S.; 1998 23

 Gravity Monitoring
• Surface gravity changes reflect underground mass
redistribution caused by production and re-injection
of hydrocarbon fluids
• Precise measurement and analysis of gravity changes
can thereby help reveal changes in reservoir
conditions

 establish a systematic procedure for micro-gravity

monitoring of operating Hydrocarbon fields
 4-D microgravity anomaly caused by:
Groundwater Subsurface
Land Topographic Subsurface
Gravity tide level / season pressure
subsidence change fluid dynamics
change change

Microgravity anomaly response is very

small (order < 100 µgal)

Need good survey planning

25
GRAVITY SURVEY
• 2D/3D Gravity Method :
- g(x,y,z)
- Anomaly relative to Reference gn (theoretical)
- Value in mGal
- Bouguer Anomaly
* 4D Microgravity Method :
- Time as fourth dimension (time lapse) g(x,y,z,t)
- Anomaly relative to previous measurement
- Value in Gal ( high precision) no elev. change
 Source of 4D Microgravity Anomaly
1. Gravity tide (Moon and Sun)
2. Dry and Wet Seasons
3. Land Subsidence
4. Groundwater level change
5. Pressure increase and decrease in Subsurface
6. Mass Decrease in Subsurface (Oil and Gas
Production in Reservoir)
7. Mass Increase in Subsurface (Water and Gas
Injection in Reservoir)
4D Gravity Anomaly :
First measurement called base line survey
Next measurement called monitoring survey

Time-lapse gravity anomaly is given by:

Dg ( x, y, z, Dt ) = gobs ( x, y, z, t2 ) - gobs ( x, y, z, t1 )

Time lapse microgravity anomaly reflects vertical ground

movement (subsidence) and subsurface density change
Theoretical Background
• Gas, oil and water have different densities, and are
subject to gravity forces in the reservoir
• Mass redistribution will cause changes in the gravity
attraction in boreholes and at the surface
• Reservoir compaction and overburden subsidence
will also cause gravity changes in boreholes and at
the surface.

29
Tidal Gravity
Due to position change of moon and sun to the earth
•Gravity tide can be obtained from :
a. Continue Gravity Tide Observation
b. Calculation using Longman equation( 1959)
c. Calculation using Brucek equation

Tide observation with

gravitymeter Scintreks CG 3
and teoritical calculation
with Longman and Brucek
formula in Rantau area 22 –
23 Nov 2002.
 Gravity value

Rainfall

Relationship between rain fall and observed microgravity

Subsidence
Subsidence) cause the distance change of the point observation in the surface
to the center of the earth. Microgravity anomaly due to the subsidence can be
derived from normal gravity:


g    978032.7 1  0.0053024 sin 2   0.0000058 sin 2 2 
g g
g , h  g  h
h

2 g
1  f  m  2 f sin  
2

h a


 0.308765 miliGal/meter  = 7.50
h

1 cm land subsidence = 3.08 Gal density difference

Groundwater level change
Gravity change due to change of groundwater level can be
derived using porosity variable in Bouguer correction.

g w  2Gh With 30% of rock porosity, every meter

g w  0.04193 h decreasing of water level will change the
gw  41.93h microGal gravity value of 12,579 Gal
Sea Level Changes
Gravity Instrument and Anomaly
4D Microgravity anomaly value  0.010 mGal ( 10 Gal)

Example :
- Groundwater and Subsidence cases  > 15 Gal
- Hydrocarbon reservoir cases  > 25 Gal
(in Indonesia : 150 Gal or 0.150 mGal)
- Geothermal reservoir  > 25 Gal
(in Indonesia : 100 Gal or 0.100 mGal)

La Coste & Romberg Gravimeter Type G has sensitivity of

10 Gal  good sensitivity
g

0
Production well Injection well Production well

Water

Oil

?
36
g

0
Production well Injection well Production well

Steam

Oil

?
37
Before Injection After Injection

Schematic Map and Profile

( Time-Lapse microgravity anomaly)
 Before Production After Production

Secondary gas cap -Decrease in Mass

-Pressure Decrease

Schematic Map and Profile

(time-lapse microgravity anomaly
39
40
41
Corrected Time-lapse (4D)
Microgravity Anomaly

43
 Will it work for my reservoir?
Many factors influence whether or not the time-lapse anomaly in
the reservoir can be detected which 4-D surveys may be repeated.
1. These include the reservoir rocks themselves
2. Nature and rate of change of fluids being produced from or
injected into the reservoir.
3. Together, these influence the relative strength of the time-lapse
anomaly.
4. The ability to detect the anomaly is also affected by the ability
to exactly duplicate the previous survey locations.
5. The first step in any time-lapse survey is a feasibility study,
which will assess the ability to detect anomaly, repeat the earlier
survey and determine the optimum time interval between
surveys.

44
GravFluid™software

45
 GravFluid™software
• Integrated gravity and time-lapse microgravity
software application for Basin Mapping,
Petroleum System Identification and dynamic
reservoir monitoring developed by PERTAMINA
- ITB
• Acquisition, Processing, Modeling, Simulation
and Visualization
46
1. Acquisition
• Feasibility Study / Model test
• Instrument calibration
• Data entry: gravity and elevation
2. Processing
• Bouguer anomaly calculation
Drift, Tidal, Lattitude, Free air, Terrain, Bouguer
• Advance Processing
Spectrum Analysis
Filtering Process
Regional and residual separation
Derivative analysis
Subsidence and water table corrections
47
3. Modeling
• Density contrast estimation using deconvolution
technique
• Sub-surface modeling based on density contrast
changes
• Surface gravity response calculation using forward
modeling
• Apparent saturation model bulding
• Sub-surface pressure change model building

48
4. Simulation
• Fluid density changes estimation for each reservoir
layer
• Reservoir fluid movement identification

5. Visualization
• Conturing / mapping
• 3D Imaging

49
 Project Design :
4D Microgravity to Improve RF
Base line 1st Time 2nd Time Continue
survey lapse survey lapse survey Project
Pre Project Preparation
Study

3 months 3 months 3 months 4 months 4 months

4-D MICROGRAVITY ACQUISITION AND INTERPRETATION TIME LINE
MONTH MONTH MONTH
WORK ACTIVITIES I (1) II (2) III (3) I (9) II (10) III (11) IV (12) I (19) II (20) III (21) IV (22)

TIME BREAK WAITING FOR THE NEXT SURVEY (Average is 6 months)

TIME BREAK WAITING FOR THE NEXT SURVEY (Average is 6 months)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
BASE LINE SURVEY FIRST TIME-LAPSE SURVEY SECOND TIME-LAPSE SURVEY

1 DATA PREPARATION

2 FEASIBILITY STUDY

Reservoir Simulation

Density change

Gravity Response

Wavelength Analysis

DEPEND ON
3 ACQUISITION SURVEY AREA (*)

4 PROCESSING

5 MODELING

6 SIMULATION

REPORT WRITING AND

7
RECOMMENDATION * *
PROJECT STAGES * * * *
Feasibility study report: Gravity base line data: First me-lapse data: Second me-lapse data:
(2 months), US$ 100,000 (3 months), US$ 285,000 (1 year), US$ 580,000 (22 months), US$ 850,000

EXPERTS
Team Leader (1)
Sr. Reservoir Engineer (1)
Sr. Geophysicist (1)

(*) Assumption Survey area : 10 x 5 km2

Point spacing : 500 m
 TIME-LAPSE RESERVOIR SIMULATION

GRAVITY PARAMETER CALCULATION

Density Change Gravity Response Wavelength Analysis

OUTPUT
Surface gravity Time interval gravity Gravity Acquisition
response measurement parameter

52
 Reservoir’s: TIME-LAPSE
PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION:
Depth, thickness
ENGINEERING Permeability,
TIME-LAPSE • Fluid density
AND Viscosity, Porosity, RESERVOIR • Pressure
GEOPHYSICAL Density, SIMULATION
DATA Injection and • Saturation
Production data

53
 1. Colecting reservoir data
• rock and fluid properties data
• volume of fluid/injection data)
2. Designing the reservoir model

Building prismatic density model of reservoir

Reconnaissance
of field area
(Scouting the field area) Calculating gravity changes

Analyzing results and evaluating reservoir behavior

Proposing development plan or recommendation

for microgravity reservoir monitoring survey

54
 Subsidence correction

g  ,h  g  
g 
h
.h
g 
h

2g
a
1  f  m  2 f sin  
2

Where
g
: Normal gravity gradient at latitude 
h
 : Latitude

h : height from ellipsoid

a : Long radius of earth ellipsoid
b : Short radius of earth ellipsoid
a  b
f: 
 a 
m : Clairaut constant = 3.937.741,445 m

56
 Water table correction
gw  2 G h
gw  0.04193  h
gw  41.93 h Gal

gw = gravity change due to water table fluctuation

 = fluid density (gr/cc)

 = porosity (%)

h = water table depth change (m)

With assumsion of 30% rock porosity, every meter lowering of water table
will change the gravity value as 12,579 Gal or 0.012579 mGal.

57
Estimation of Apparent Saturation using Marquardt
Inversion Method

From the density changes data (), it can be estimated an apparent

saturation using Marquardt inversion method. Basic equation used in
inversion process is the density equation derived from Schön (1996).

   (  2  1 )( S f  1)
Where  the porosity, 2 the density of injected water, 1 the density
of oil, and Sf the water saturation.

In this case, the density changes has been obtained from

deconvolution technique.
Estimation of the Apparent Pressure Changes
Apparent pressure (P) can be estimated from :
• Density changes value obtained from deconvolution
technique , and
• Reservoir thickness value from well data using pressure
equation derived Allis et al. (2000)

In this equation, reservoir thickness is related to density changes

and pressure changes by:

DP = Dr . g . Dh
Where P the pressure change (Pascal),  the density changes
(kg/m3), g the gravitational acceleration and h the reservoir
thickness (m).
Flow chart of apparent saturation estimation
using Marquardt inversion technique

Density Changes
Map

Define the relationship

Between density and saturation
(Schon, 1995)

   (  2  1 )( S f  1)

Inversion process
using Marquardt method

Estimation of
Apparent Saturation
 Flow Chart of the Apparent Pressure
Changes Estimation

Density contrast map Reservoir thickness data

Define the relationship between density and pressure

Changes (Pressure Equation derived from Allis et al., 2000)
DP = Dr . g . Dh
P = pressure change ,   density contrast, h = reservoir thickness

Define assumption of pressure & mass effect

to gravity anomaly

Apparent pressure changes map

Sept’04 Nov’06 Nov’07

Gravity value (gobs) of Sept’04, Nov’06 and Nov’07

9327000 9327000
PDT-02
DensityC
Density hanges M
change ap
map Pressure
Apparent Apparent C
pressure hanges M
change ap
map
September 200
September 4- Novem
2001 ber 2006Perio
– November 2006d September 200
September 4- N
2001 –ovem ber 2006Perio
November 2006d
(Tam bun Structure) -60 (Tambun Structure)
9326000 -0.0 2 Carbonate Field 9326000 Carbonate Field
-6 0 TBN-16ST
TBN-16ST
-0 .0 2
-6 0
TBN-20
-120 TBN-20

9325000
9325000 TBN-13
TBN-13 TBN -22ST
TBN -22ST TBN-10
TBN-10 -0 .0 2 TBN-18
TBN-07
TBN-07 TBN-18
P (psi) 0 1 2 km
0 1 2 km 9324000 -6 0 TBN-21
TBN -06
TBN-08
9324000 TBN -06
TBN-21 TBN-08
-0 .0 2 (g r /c c ) TBN-15
0
TBN -11
TBN-15
TBN -11 - 20
TBN-05
TBN -23
0 .0 6 9323000 TBN-14
TBN-05
TBN -23 - 40
9323000 TBN-14 TBN-12
0 .0 4 TBN-17
TBN-12 -60 TBN-04 - 60
TBN-17
0 .0 2 TBN-19
TBN-04
-80
TBN-19 9322000 TBN-02
0
TBN-01
9322000 TBN-02
- 100
TBN-03

0
TBN-01 0

-6
-0 .0 2
TBN-03 - 12 - 120
-0 .0 4 TBN-09

-60
9321000 - 140
TBN-09
-0 .0 6
9321000 - 160
-0 .0 8 Production Well
-0.02 -180
-0 .1
Production Well 9320000 Injection Well

9320000 -0 .1 2 Injection Well

722000 723000 724000 725000 726000 727000 728000

722000 728000
9327000

ApparentSaturation
Apparent Saturation Cha nges Mmap
change ap
September 200
September 4- Novem
2001 ber 2006Perio
– November 2006d
0.1
(Tam bun Structu
Carbonate re)
Field
9326000
TBN-16ST

1
0. 0 .3 TBN-20

9325000
TBN-13
TBN -22ST 0.1
TBN-10

TBN-07 TBN-18

S 0 1 2 km
9324000 TBN -06 app
TBN-21 TBN-08 0.1

TBN-15 0.38
TBN -11

TBN-05
0.34
TBN -23
9323000 TBN-14
0.3
TBN-12
TBN-17
TBN-04 0.26
TBN-19

9322000 0.22
TBN-02
TBN-01
0.18
TBN-03 0 .3
0.1

0.14
TBN-09
9321000
0.1
0 .1
0.06
Production Well
0.02
9320000 Injection Well
-0.02

722000 723000 724000 725000 726000 727000 728000

9327000

Time-lapseMicrogravity AnomalyMap
SepMass
temberdeficit
2004- Narea
ovembased onPeriod
ber 2006
time lapse microgravity
(TambunStructureanomaly
)
9326000
TBN-16ST
(Period: Sept 04 – Nov 06)

TBN-20

9325000 TBN-13
TBN-22ST
TBN -10

TBN-07 TBN-18

0 1 2 km
9324000 TBN-21
TBN-06 TBN-08

TBN -15
mGal
TBN-11
Mass Deficit Area 0.18
TBN -05
9323000 TBN-14
0.14
TBN-17 TBN-12

TBN -04 0.1

TBN-19
0.06
9322000 TBN-02
TBN-01 0.02
TBN-03 0
-0. 02

TBN-09
-0. 06
9321000
-0. 1

-0. 14 Production Well

9320000 -0. 18 Injection Well

-0. 22

722000 723000 724000 725000 726000 727000 728000

 CASE STUDY
Multilayer Sandstone Reservoir

‘SS’ Oil Field

Sumatra, Indonesia
Station distribution of 4D microgravity
Survey at ‘SS’ oilfield, Sumatra, Indonesia
N

0 km 1

Gravity station spacing is 100 m in the target area and 200 m in the surrounding
area, requiring 1720 gravity stations designed to adequately detect gravity
anomalies in the survey area
 Faults with
almost N-S direction at
‘SS’ oilfield area

AI structure map

Time structure map

 N

Second Measurement
(July 27 – August 12, 2006 )

First Measurement
(March 15 – April 7, 2006)
 First measurement

Second measurement

+ gravity measurement station

Average density = 2 gr/cc

+ gravity measurement station
+ gravity measurement station
 LEGEND : Normal fault Physical properties changes boundary

Bouguer anomaly map and its structure interpretation

& physical properties changes boundary
Time lapse microgravity anomaly map and its structure
interpretation & wells location
(Jati et.al, 2008)

Time lapse microgravity anomaly map and its structure

interpretation & wells location
 5B-78E, 4D gravity

5C-91N,
4D gravity

BOPD
6B-16, WFO4

(Jati dkk, 2008) New well production was placed on zero and
relatively low time-lapse microgravity
 PUSTAKA
REFERENCES

1. Calvert, Rodney; 2008: Insights and Methods for Reservoir 4D

Reservoir Monitoring and Characterization; Distinguished
Instructor Series, No. 8. SEG & EAGE.

2. Gibson, R. I. (1998): Gravity and Magnetics in Oil Exploration:

A Historical Perspective, in Gibson, R.I., Millegan, P.S. Eds.,
Geologic Applications of Gravity and Magnetics: Case Histories;
SEG Geophysical References Series, No 8, AAPG Studies in
Geology, No. 43; Published Jointly by SEG and AAPG, Tulsa,
USA.

3. Magoon, L.B.; Dow, W.G., 1994: The Petroleum System – From

Source to Trap; AAPG Memoir 60; Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.