C
e a
S E
r - Ss T
uU
r D
f aY c e
September 2009
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 2. Conceptual geological cross section for Bintuni Bay area. Key subsurface features for study include: thick massive limestones (Kais
and Faumai), karsting (intra-Faumai), stratigraphically complex reservoir characteristics (Paleocene channel sands), and shallow gas sands (in
Steenkool-Klasafet).
1009
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 3. (a) Shallow gas accumulations are based on high-amplitude seismic reectors in the Steenkool-Klasfet. (b) Shallow gas model was
included in the subsurface geological model.
Figure 4. (a) Coherency slice at Faumai zone from ocean-bottom cable (OBC) seismic data, karst feature represented in black. (b) Inferred
horizons representing karstied zone.
September 2009
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 5. Channel model in Paleocene interval: (a) mudprone, (b) upper member, (c) middle member, and (d) lower member.
September 2009
C A S E
S T U D Y
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 6. Time slice of migrated synthetic volume (a) and cross section
in Y direction resulting from narrow-azimuth acquisition geometry
(b). Red arrow points to area of interest.
Figure 7. Time slice of migrated synthetic volume (a) and cross section
in Y direction resulting from wide-azimuth acquisition geometry (b).
Red arrow points to area of interest, better signal-to-noise ratio and
good reector continuity.
to form a top and base of karst. The base of karst was then
shifted in time to the bottom of a seismic volume below the
acoustic basement, snapping it to the nearest high-amplitude
reector (just noise), which served to randomize the reector.
The base was then shifted back up to a position beneath the
top of karst, at the appropriate time interval for the karsting. Both horizons were then cut spatially into pieces using a
polygon delete tool (Figure 4). The dimension of karst varies
between 0200 m thick and 100500 m wide. The lateral occurrence ranged from very prevalent to sparse.
The Paleocene consisted of four intervals: Mudprone,
Upper Member, Middle Member, and Lower Member (Figure 5). Each interval was modeled to contain a large number
of sands, varying in reservoir quality and distribution (discontinuous-conned channels system through unconned
sheet sands). The channel orientations were north-south 45
based on well data. Lithostratigraphy zonation referenced to
biostratigraphy provided the basis for gross thickness of sand/
1013
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
1014
September 2009
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 10. A
typical inline
comparison from the
NAZ and WAZ150
volumes (Model 1),
running north-south
from an area of
dense karsting and
shallow gas presence
in the north, to a
relatively karst- and
shallow gas-free area
in the south. The
image beneath the
karsting on both
lines is signicantly
degraded compared
to the areas without
karsting. However,
many subkarst
reections on the
WAZ150 image
retain continuity
and are easily
picked.
Analysis
Our analysis of the 3D FD models consisted of three primary steps: determine which form of the data would provide the
most information about dierences in the seismic volumes;
determine which seismic volumes in fact contained dierent
information than others; and then analyze the dierences between the volumes. The exact position, velocity, and density
of each geologic interval were known since we worked from
a model, so extracting amplitude and continuity information
at key horizons was trivial. However, evaluating 20 20-km
3D seismic volumes representing six acquisition geometries
1016
September 2009
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 12.
Comparison of
Model 1 WAZ
acquisition
geometries using
inline 1486.
Dierences are
much more subtle
than the dierences
between the NAZ
and WAZ.
Figure 13.
Comparison of
Model 2 WAZ
acquisition
geometries using
inline 1486. The
degradation due
to the shallower
top of carbonate is
clear, but variation
in image quality
between the WAZ
volumes is not
enormous at the
target intervals.
1017
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 14. Comparison of the reection strength of the Jurassic reservoir, which is modeled as a continuous sheet sand of constant (~100 m)
thickness. High and continuous reection strength gives some indication that the surface is well illuminated. This appears to indicate that the
WAZ acquisitions are capturing signicantly more reected energy from the pre-Tertiary section.
September 2009
both NAZ volumes were similar (Figure 8), and dropping one
volume would reduce the volume of data to be reviewed. But
more importantly, a large part of the decision was because the
WAZ volumes all provided signicantly higher quality images
than either NAZ volume (Figure 9). Therefore, we decided to
focus the initial analysis on the dierences between one of the
NAZ volumes and the WAZ volumes.
Results
The geologic framework underpinning the FD model was
created so as to maximize the amount of information we
could derive about the interaction of subsurface elements.
Consequently, some areas of the model contained shallow
gas intervals, some contained karst, some contained subseismic resolution Paleocene channels, and some areas contained
all three. Figure 10 illustrates a typical inline comparison
from the NAZ and WAZ150 volumes (Model 1), running
north-south from an area of dense karsting and shallow gas
presence in the north, to an area relatively free of karst and
shallow gas in the south. The Top Permian represented the
base of our imaging zone of interest, and the Top Paleocene
represented the top of our imaging zone of interest. On both
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
Figure 15. Comparison of a line taken from both the Vorwata Field WAZ and NAZ seismic data sets. The top reservoir (Jurassic) annotated on
the gure is the key horizon for this eld. The improvement in reservoir reector quality in the WAZ seismic data was sucient in the Vorwata
case to help the interpreter directly pick the top reservoir for the rst time in the elds history.
seismic lines, the image beneath the karsting was signicantly degraded compared to the areas without karsting. The
many subkarst reectors on the WAZ150 image, however,
still retained continuity, and were easily picked. The presence
of shallow gas near and on the line in the north appeared to
have little impact on image degradation relative to the impact
of the karst. Figure 11 shows data from the same north-south
line, but from Model 2. Here the top of the carbonates (Kais)
was moved shallower, and the interval between the Paleocene
and the Permian has been expanded proportionally. The degradation of the entire NAZ subsurface image was obvious
when compared to the same line from Model 1. The degradation of the WAZ subsurface image was also signicant
as compared to Model 1, especially at the Paleocene level;
however, overall the image degradation was signicantly less
than that of the NAZ image. The image quality showed a
signicant dependence on the depth to top of carbonates,
as well as the presence of karsting. It also highlighted the
impact of WAZ acquisition.
The next step in the analysis was to compare the range of
WAZ acquisition geometries, because in both of the previous data comparisons (Figures 10 and 11), the WAZ image
was superior to the NAZ image, regardless of the subsurface
element causing image degradation. Although the image obtained by the WAZ150 was clearly superior to the NAZ geometries, it was not realistically achievable in the eld due to
operational and nancial constraints. Analysis of the sparse
versions of the WAZ150 provided a more useful insight into
what might be achievable in the eld with new seismic acquisition. Figure 12 shows a comparison of Model 1 WAZ
acquisition geometries for the same inline used in previous
gures. There was a dierence in image quality between the
1020
September 2009
volumes, but the dierences were much more subtle than the
dierences between the NAZ and WAZ. Figure 13 shows
the same line again from the same WAZ acquisition geometries, but from Model 2. The degradation due to the shallower top of carbonates was clear, but again, the variation in
image quality between the WAZ volumes was not enormous
at the target intervals. The dierence between the WAZ150
and the sparsest WAZ survey (150 600) equated to a fourfold increase in line spacing. The corresponding fold decrease
was approximately the same amount. This result suggested
that the sparse version of the WAZ acquisition did not negate
the large increase in image quality the WAZ acquisitions gain
over the NAZ acquisitions.
Comparisons shown thus far were based on inlines and
crosslines. We made additional horizon-based comparisons,
as previously stated, especially to examine spatial details captured by the various acquisition geometries. We used horizon-based rms amplitude extraction comparisons to focus on
two primary intervals into which signicant stratigraphic elements were built in the subsurface model (Faumai/karsting,
Paleocene/channeling). The rst interval analyzed was the
karst near the top of the Faumai carbonate. The karst bodies
were in fact well imaged by both the NAZ and WAZ volumes. The next interval analyzed was the Paleocene interval,
which was modeled to contain a variety of subseismic resolution turbidite-like channels. Although the channels were
clearly seen on the extraction from the velocity model, we
were disappointed to nd that most channel features in the
model were scarcely imaged in the WAZ data when they were
subkarst, and they were almost completely absent in the NAZ
data. Another informative comparison we found was of the
reection strength of the Jurassic reservoir, which was mod-
Downloaded 03/13/15 to 194.80.232.1. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C A S E
S T U D Y
eled as a continuous sheet sand of constant (~100 m) thickness (Figure 14). High and continuous reection strength
gave some indication that the surface was well illuminated.
The extractions on the top of the Jurassic reservoir from the
WAZ volumes showed similar reection strength, which was
generally good over roughly half of the extraction surface. The
extraction from the NAZ volume showed signicantly more
discontinuous and overall lower reection strength than any
of the WAZ extractions. This suggested that the WAZ acquisitions were capturing signicantly more reected energy
from the pre-Tertiary section.
To this point, the analysis of synthetic seismic volumes
generated from both NAZ and WAZ acquisition geometries
indicated that WAZ acquisition geometries were providing
superior subsurface imaging of the 3D subsurface model
from which they were derived. However, there remained the
question of how accurately the 3D FD model represents the
true subsurface being investigated. Fortunately for this study,
overlapping sparse OBC WAZ seismic and conventional
towed-streamer NAZ seismic have been acquired over Vorwata Field in Bintuni Bay. Also, drilling and seismic analysis
have shown that signicant karsting exists over Vorwata Field
near the top of the Faumai carbonate. Figure 15 shows a comparison of a line taken from both the Vorwata Field WAZ and
NAZ seismic data sets. The top reservoir (Jurassic) annotated
on the gure was the key horizon for this eld. The improvement in reservoir reector quality in the WAZ seismic data
was sucient in the Vorwata case to help the interpreter directly pick the top reservoir for the rst time in the elds
history. The uplift in pre-Tertiary image quality in the WAZ
data appears to agree with the preliminary conclusions of this
FD modeling study.
Conclusions
The goals of this study were to compare WAZ and NAZ acquisition and to identify key subsurface features impacting
image quality. Previous seismic surveys were used to decide
on a shot patch width for the FD model. Due to time and
budget constraints, we did not conduct patch-width tests.
These tests would be required to optimize the patch size and
the shot grid, in order to economize the acquisition geometry
for execution in the eld.
The 3D FD modeling results have afforded us signicant insight into the impact of key subsurface features on image
quality based on generalized Bintuni Bay
subsurface geology. The key features affecting seismic image quality are karsting
and depth to the top of the massive carbonates. The imaging impact of shallow
gas appears to be secondary to those of
both karst and depth to top of carbonates. For this 3D FD model, WAZ acquisition geometries resulted in pre-Tertiary images that were superior to those
of the NAZ acquisition geometries. A
four-fold increase in receiver line spacing
September 2009
1021