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