IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS AND ENGINEERING

J. Geophys. Eng. 7 (2010) 1629 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/7/1/002

Seismic monitoring of in situ combustion
process in a heavy oil eld
Hossein Mehdi Zadeh
1,2
, Ravi P Srivastava
3
, Nimisha Vedanti
3
and
Martin Landr
2
Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics, NTNU, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
E-mail: hossein.mehdi-zadeh@ntnu.no, ravi prakash@ngri.res.in, nimisha@ngri.res.in and
martin.landro@ntnu.no
Received 19 February 2009
Accepted for publication 9 November 2009
Published 1 December 2009
Online at stacks.iop.org/JGE/7/002
Abstract
Three time-lapse 3D seismic surveys are analysed to monitor the effect of in situ combustion, a
thermal-enhanced oil recovery process in the Balol heavy oil reservoir in India. The baseline
data were acquired prior to the start of the in situ combustion process in four injection wells,
while the two monitor surveys were acquired 1 and 2 years after injection start, respectively.
We present the results of baseline and second monitor surveys. Fluid substitution studies based
on acoustic well logs predict a seismic amplitude decrease at the top reservoir and an increase
at the base reservoir. Both the amplitude dimming at the top reservoir and the brightening at
the base reservoir are observed in the eld data. The extent of the most pronounced 4D
anomaly is estimated from the seismic amplitude and time shift analysis. The interesting result
of seismic analysis is that the anomalies are laterally shifted towards the northwest, rather than
the expected east, from the injector location suggesting a northwest movement of the in situ
combustion front. No clear evidence of air leakage into other sand layers, neither above nor
below the reservoir sand, is observed. This does not necessarily mean that all the injected air is
following the reservoir sand, especially if the thief sand layers are thin. These layers might be
difcult to observe on seismic data.
Keywords: time-lapse seismic, heavy oil
1. Introduction
Heavy oil is commonly characterized by high viscosity and
low API gravity which results in a low primary recovery.
The in situ combustion process is a thermal recovery method,
used for heavy oil reservoirs in which a part of the oil is
burned to generate heat. This heat reduces the viscosity of
the oil leading to improved mobility and hence increased oil
production rate. A typical combustion front moves through
the reservoir matrix by consuming the fuel as it moves ahead,
thereby leaving practically no oil behind the burning front
(Burger 1976, Tadema and Weijdema 1970). In this process,
1
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
2
Present address: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, S.P.
Andersens vei 15 A, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
3
Present address: National Geophysical Research Institute, Uppal Road,
Hyderabad 500 007, India.
typical seismic parameters such as P, S wave velocity, density
and attenuation factor within the reservoir matrix change
under the inuence of the movement of the thermal front.
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion can help to
better understand the process and optimize the strategy for
enhanced oil recovery project (Nur et al 1984, Lumley 1995).
The heat produced in the reservoir will cause a decrease in
the seismic velocity and one can expect push-downs (travel-
time increases) in the subsequent monitor surveys. Therefore,
one way to seismically monitor the movement of the thermal
front in the reservoir is to perform a time shift analysis of
the 4D seismic data (Landr and Stammeijer 2004). On the
other hand, the amplitude of the top and bottom reservoirs is
also affected by the inuence of the thermal front; therefore,
amplitude analysis can also showconsistent anomalies (Hedlin
et al 2001). However, in a heterogeneous reservoir, the thermal
front direction, rates and efciency of the process can be
1742-2132/10/010016+14$30.00 2010 Nanjing Institute of Geophysical Prospecting Printed in the UK 16
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
unpredictable and may need combination of different methods
to monitor. Greaves and Fulp (1987) were able to monitor the
combustion burnt area and sweep efciency with conrmation
by borehole measurements. In fact, one of the earliest works
in seismic monitoring of steam injection is by Macrides et al
(1988). Monitoring of the Duri eld, Sumatra, Indonesia,
also showed a successful improvement in monitoring of steam
ood (Jenkins et al 1997, Waite and Sigit 1997, Sigit et al
1999). Another interesting attempt was made by Zou et al
(2003) to study the effects of substitution of thermal uids
in a synthetic heavy oil reservoir that is based on the Pikes
Peak eld, Canada. Indeed, there are many interesting works
on Canadians heavy oil (e.g. Bianco et al 2008, Chi and Xu
2007, Dumitrescu and Lines 2008, Gray et al 2004, Isaac and
Lawton 2006, Li et al 2001, Mayo 1996, Schmitt 1999). In
this study we test both travel time and amplitude analysis on
Balol 4D seismic data for monitoring the in situ combustion
front movement.
2. Field description
The Balol eld, operated by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
of India Ltd (ONGC), is located in the heavy oil belt in the
north-western part of the Cambay Basin, India. Balol is one
of the major elds within this belt with a density of oil around
960 kg m
3
at 15.5

C. In terms of API gravity index, the Balol

oil is about 15.5

API. This index is a measure of oil density in

comparison to water at 15.5

C. Heavy oil is classied in the
API range from 22 to less than 10 (Han et al 2008). The Balol
crude is asphaltic in nature (68%) with viscosity varying
from 100 to 450 centipoise. The reservoir temperature and
pressure are 72

C and 10.2 MPa, respectively. The average
porosity and permeability of this sandstone reservoir are 28%
and 38 Darcy, respectively (Kumar and Mohan 2004, Kumar
et al 2006). Balol was initially operated under active water
drive (Doriah et al 2007). The primary recovery was only
1012%, due to a high mobility difference between oil and
water. Therefore, the composition of the produced uids had
increased to 95100%water in some wells and forced the wells
to be closed. This was the main motivation for using a thermal
EOR processes.
The base map of the 4Darea and the positions of the active
air injector wells B-145, B-147, B-153 and B-162, which
are in operation after November 2003 (i.e. soon after the
baseline survey), are shown in gure 1. The major fault,
close to the indicated injectors, is reported to be a sealing fault
(Mukherjee et al 2006), and therefore it is likely to assume that
the injectors have no signicant effect west to the fault. The
major pay zone sand within the reservoir has a northwest up-
dip direction with an average pay thickness of 215 m while
the oilwater contact (OWC) varies from990 to 1025 mdepth.
3. Rock physics modelling
In the case of in situ combustion, air or pure oxygen is injected
and then it is ignited in the reservoir zone. Subsequent air
injection propagates the burning front through the reservoir.
Figure 1. Top reservoir structural map. The contours show the
depth of the top of the reservoir in meters. The thick red lines show
major faults at the top of the reservoir. Rectangle shows the 4D area
with in-line (vertical) and cross-line (horizontal) numbers.
The burning front is thin (roughly a meter, much less than the
seismic resolution limit) but high temperatures are generated
within it (600

C in Balol eld) that vaporize the connate
water and a portion of the crude (phase change from liquid to
gas). The vaporized connate water forms a steam zone that
behaves like a steam drive. The vaporized oil consists of the
light components that form a miscible displacement. The high
temperature combustion can also form in situ CO
2
ood (Lake
1989).
In the in situ combustion process, oxygen is consumed in
two stages, one during a low-temperature oxidation at about
300

Cand other at high-temperature oxidation at about 400

C
(Lake 1989). In low-temperature oxidation, the oil viscosity
is lowered and the oil is converted into alcohols, ketones and
aldehydes (no phase change from liquid to gas). In high-
temperature oxidation, the combustion proceeds entirely to
carbon dioxide or monoxide, this involves a phase change
from liquid to gas.
The heavy oil behaves as solid at high frequencies and
lowtemperatures (laboratory condition), due to non-negligible
shear modulus. This solid-like properties of the heavy oil
violates Gassmanns uid substitution (Das and Batzle 2008).
The velocity of heavy oil is a function of temperature, API
gravity (density), viscosity and seismic frequency. However,
at low (seismic) frequencies and high temperatures, heavy oil
does not support shear wave propagation and have liquid-like
properties. The liquid point is the temperature at which the
shear rigidity vanishes. This point depends on the API and
wave frequency. When the reservoir has a temperature above
the liquid point, heavy oil properties are similar to that of light
oil. In this case, the oil bulk modulus shows a linear trend with
increasing temperature and depends mainly on API gravity
(Han et al 2008). The expected behaviour of the liquid point as
a function of oil density (API) and the frequency measurement
is given by Han et al (2008). For the Balol eld, with
17
H M Zadeh et al
Table 1. Initial properties used for uid replacement modelling (FRM). Reproduced from Kumar and Mohan (2004).
Fluid Matrix
Component Brine Oil Gas Quartz Clay Rock matrix Fluid mixture
Density (g cc
1
) 1 0.92 0.007 2.56 2.58 2.56 0.93
Bulk modulus (GPa) 2.48 1.79 0.021 38 20.9 36.5 1.95
Shear modulus (GPa) 0 0 0 44 6.9 34.7 0
Saturation (%) 30 70 0 95 5 72 28
Figure 2. P-wave velocity (top) and density (bottom) changes
versus gas saturation.
15.50

API gravity oil, the reservoir temperature (72

C) is
higher than liquid point (lower than 5

C in seismic frequency
range) and the shear modulus of the oil is negligible. Thus,
for this case Gassmanns uid substitution equation remains
valid.
The rock properties for Gassmanns uid substitution are
summarized in table 1 and are reproduced from Kumar and
Mohan (2004). They calculate the bulk modulus and density
of the rock matrix from assumed mineral composition (i.e.
95% quartz and 5% clay). The uid properties are calculated
from available PVT data and rock physics equations (Batzle
and Wang 1992, Vasquez and Beggs 1980).
The changes in P-wave velocity and density versus gas
saturation are shown in gure 2. The maximum drop in
P-wave velocity is 8% which corresponds to a 15% increase in
gas saturation and a 1.5% decrease in density. This represents
the maximum change in P-wave velocity (corresponding to
the minimum in gure 2). However, if the reservoir is fully
saturated with gas (100%gas case), the drop in P-wave velocity
is 3.6% which corresponds to a 12% decrease in density. This
represents the maximum change in density (see gure 2).
Auid replacement modelling (FRM) using available well
log and eld seismic data was done. The initial physical
properties of the matrix and uid used for the FRM are shown
in table 1 for the initial case. In this study we use a porosity
of 28% and assume it is constant after in situ combustion.
There is no S-wave log available in our study. Therefore,
we use Castagnas mud-rock line to generate the S-wave log.
Castagnas relation is a statistical relationship between P- and
S-wave velocities (Castagna et al 1985). We assume a constant
Poissons ratio (0.1) for dry rock and estimate the dry rock
bulk modulus from Gregorys method (Gregory 1977). In
Gregorys method, the dry bulk modulus is obtained by solving
the following quadratic equation:
y
2
(s 1) + y
_
s
_
k
s
k
f
1
_
s +
M
k
s
_

_
s
M
k
s
__
k
s
k
f
1
_
= 0 (1)
where
y = 1
k
dry
k
s
(2)
s =
3(1 )
1 +
(3)
and M is given by
M = v
2
p
(4)
where , k
s
, k
f
are porosity, rock matrix bulk modulus and
uid mixture bulk modulus, respectively. In these equations,
Poissons ratio and dry rock bulk modulus are noted by and
k
dry
, respectively. In equation (4), and v
p
are density and
P-wave velocity of the saturated rock, respectively. The
density of the saturated rock can be calculated by
= (1 )
s
+
f
(5)
where
s
and
f
are solid and uid part densities of saturated
rock, respectively. The assumption behind this method is from
the fact that for most dry rocks and unconsolidated sands,
Poissons ratio is about 0.1 and is independent of pressure as
long as the effective pressure is non-zero. As the effective
pressure approaches zero, it is shown by Duffaut and Landr
(2007) that the Poissons ratio will change. However, if
the shear-wave velocity is available, Poissons ratio can be
calculated directly.
The moduli of the mineral mixture can be predicted using
HashinShtrikman bounds (Hashin and Shtrikman 1963).
We use these bounds due to the fact that they give the
narrowest possible range of moduli, without specifying the
geometry of the constituents (Avseth et al 2005). Since
the Gassmann model assumes a homogenous mineral modulus,
it is useful to represent this mixed mineralogy with an average
mineral modulus, equal to the upper and lower bound average.
Therefore, we use an average of lower and upper Hashin
Shtrikman bounds as frame bulk and shear modulus. We
use the Reuss lower bound (Mavko et al 1998) to estimate
the effective elastic modulus of the uid mixture, assuming
homogeneous saturation of uid components.
18
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
Figure 3. Synthetic modelling result of different gas saturation scenarios. From left to right: resistivity log, natural gamma ray log,
synthetic seismic data (ve repeated traces for 0, 15 and 100% gas saturation), P-wave velocity log and density log. The horizontal lines
show the approximate top (955 ms) and base (975 ms) of the reservoir. The time axes are calculated from depth conversion using the
baseline velocity model.
Figure 4. Comparison of real and synthetic data for a realistic changes in P-wave velocity (4%) and density (0.75%). From left to right:
natural gamma ray log, acoustic impedance log, synthetic seismic data and real seismic data. The approximate top (955 ms) and base
(975 ms) of the reservoir, for baseline, are indicated in logs. The time axes are based on the baseline velocity model.
The reservoir pressure change is negligible according to
the eld history (Kumar and Mohan 2004). This is due to
strong aquifer support. Hence, we keep the pressure constant
before and after combustion to 10.2 MPa.
Nur and Simmons (1969) and Devilbiss et al (1979) show
that the temperature-related changes in the velocity are largely
due to the effect of pore uids while the skeleton properties
remain approximately constant. We, therefore, consider the
effect of temperature in terms of change in uid phase, i.e.
from heavy oil to vapour.
Synthetic, zero offset traces corresponding to 0, 15 and
100% gas saturation are shown in gure 3. These gas
saturation values were chosen judiciously, as they correspond
to pre-combustion (0%), maximum v
p
change (15%, see
gure 2) and post-combustion (100%) cases. The well logs
are from a production well (B-183) that was logged before
the in situ combustion process started (baseline case). The
result from FRM shows an amplitude decrease at the top and
an amplitude increase at the base of the reservoir for 15%
and 100% gas saturations compared to 0.0% gas saturation
case. Since there are no log data available for the post-
combustion case, we estimated the realistic change in P-wave
and density within the bounds obtained from FRM which
satises the monitor seismic data. The estimated change in
19
H M Zadeh et al
Figure 5. Schematic geological models for base (left) and monitor (right) cases. The changed area (in monitor case) has 4% and 0.75%
decreased in P-wave velocity and density, respectively.
Figure 6. Seismic section of unmigrated synthetic data, base (top), monitor (middle) and difference (bottom). The data are stacked. The
diffraction curves due to sharp velocity change around the fault are visible in all sections. The top (red line) and base of the reservoir are
located around 955 ms and 990 ms, respectively.
v
p
and density is around 4.0% and 0.75%, respectively.
A synthetic trace of such changes is shown in gure 4. The
synthetic result is compared with real traces which are post-
stack traces from baseline survey (B) and monitor (M) surveys
at injector well B-153 (situated approximately 635 m south
of production well B-183). A good correspondence between
the synthetic and the real trace is observed. The normalized
RMS (NRMS) amplitude change in this case is around 30%
for a 50 ms time window including both top and base of the
reservoir.
4. Synthetic data study
Amajor challenge for the Balol 4Dseismic is that the expected
4D changes are close to a major fault. The typical vertical
displacement of the major fault in this area is reported to be
around 300400 m. We study the effect of fault to 4D analysis
by a synthetic 2D elastic nite difference modelling. Two
sets of synthetic data are generated. The source and receiver
separation are 25 mand 12.5 m, respectively, with a maximum
offset of 2500 m. The source and receiver depths are 6 m and
8 m, respectively. The models for baseline and monitor cases
are shown in gure 5. For simplicity, we add a water layer to
the model to avoid ground roll noise with the expense of adding
multiples. In the monitor case, we introduce an anomaly
close to the fault with 50 m extension. The anomaly has a
4% decrease in P-wave velocity and a 0.75% decrease in the
density in comparison to the base model, which was estimated
from the rock physics model. A stacked seismic section
for baseline, monitor and difference is shown in gure 6.
The diffraction curves are evident in the difference section.
20
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
Figure 7. The corresponding base (top), monitor (middle) and difference (bottom) synthetic seismic sections after post-stack time
migration. The multiples are present. The top (red line) and base of the reservoir are located around 955 ms and 990 ms, respectively.
Figure 8. Amplitude analysis for the synthetic data in a 50 ms time window (9501000 ms), including both top and base reservoir primaries.
This suggests that migration may improve the 4D image.
The results after post-stack migration are shown in gure 7.
The 4D signal is clear and interpretable in this case. Note
that the time shift is not observable due to small extension
of the 4D anomaly that limits the resolution. Therefore,
amplitude analysis helps to detect such a small anomaly. The
amplitude analysis of the baseline, monitor and the difference
is shown in gure 8. The RMS amplitude analysis of the
difference gives the most pronounce 4D effect in this case.
Based on this analysis, we chose to focus on amplitude
analysis of the real data as time shifts are expected to be
less signicant. Since the injector wells are close to the
fault in the eld, we think that migrated eld data are a
better candidate to monitor the re front, despite the fact
that the migration may introduce artefacts. Additionally,
we perform a resolution test to nd the minimum detectable
extension of anomaly for the eld case. According to this
test, the rst Fresnel zone is 180190 m. Hence, the expected
anomalies for the Monitor-1 survey (100 diameter) might be
beyond the noise level, while for the Monitor-2 survey (200
m diameter) might be detectable. However, we emphasize
that the migration collapses the Fresnel zone to a much
smaller area.
21
H M Zadeh et al
Figure 9. The location of the sources for baseline (red) and monitor line (blue).
5. Time-lapse 3D seismic acquisition
The main goal of the time-lapse 3D seismic surveys was
to monitor changes in the reservoir condition due to in situ
combustion and track the in situ combustion front movement.
To achieve this goal, P-wave time-lapse seismic data were
acquired at regular intervals, keeping the same acquisition
parameters. The baseline data were acquired during
OctoberNovember 2003, before the in situ combustion
process started. After the base data acquisition, four
injection wells were put on in situ combustion successively
from north to south. Wells B-147, B-162, B-145 and
B-153 were ignited respectively on November 2003, (19)
December 2003, (29) December 2003 and January 2004 and
continuous air injection is going on in all these wells to
sustain the re. Subsequent to the baseline survey, two
monitor surveys (Monitor-1 and Monitor-2) were carried
out at the interval of 12 months under similar climate
conditions with the same survey parameters (Kumar et al
2006). The acquisition consists of 12 receiver lines with
72 channels in each line. Group and inline shot intervals are
20 m with a minimum near offset of 20 m. The data are
recorded for 5 s with a 2 ms time sampling interval using
the end-on shooting method. Shot and receiver locations for
baseline and monitor data are shown in gures 9 and 10,
respectively. The fold map of the data sets after matching
is shown in gure 11. Note that the injectors B-162 and B-152
are in the low fold area.
6. 3D processing
Consistent 3D processing ows are applied to both baseline
and monitor data. Since the data are processed by ONGC, we
have limited knowledge on specic details related to the 3D
and 4D processing. The available data processing details are
given in the appendix. The data are contaminated by ground
roll noise. FK-ltering, in view of amplitude preservation,
is avoided for attenuation of this noise. Instead, surface
noise attenuation is performed. Despite applying the noise
attenuation process, the high amplitude of ground rolls in short
offset traces could not be fully eliminated and caused noisy
stack in shallower zones. Surface noise attenuation, consistent
amplitude balancing and deconvolution are the processes that
are in favour of 4D. However, approximately 10% of traces
are relinquished in the noise editing process that can weaken
4D processing.
Since the injectors are close to the major fault, as shown
in gure 1, it is expected that the time migrated data are more
reliable than the unmigrated due to scattering and the shadow
effect of fault on the anomalies. This is conrmed by the
study of both synthetic data and processing of unmigrated
eld data. Therefore, we use time migrated data for the time-
lapse seismic analysis in this case. The reservoir engineering
estimate of the thermal front movement was reported to be
50 m/year, thus we focused our 4D study on baseline and
second monitor data which has time interval of 2 years and
expected to bear the signature of thermal front movement
by 100 m.
22
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
Figure 10. Receiver positions for baseline (red) and monitor line (blue).
7. 4D processing
In order to look for injection-related time-lapse changes and
non-processing artefacts, both data sets are treated the same
way, when possible. The pre-stack time migrated data sets are
fully stacked using the same velocity eld.
Despite the best effort to acquire and process the data
sets in the same way, systematic differences are observed.
To remove such a difference, a process that we call pre-
4D is applied to the monitor data. The idea of the pre-4D
process is to minimize the difference in the overburden (static
window). This can be achieved by removing the time and
wavelet differences in common trace pairs within the static
window. In this study, the static window is assumed to be
from 600 ms to 750 ms, since there is a strong reector
in this window. No changes are expected above 600 ms;
hence, we do not include it in static window. The window
below 750 ms is not contributed in the static window, since
there might be temperature changes right above the reservoir.
We do understand that the in situ combustion process affects
the overburden and underburden; however, the calculation of
heat losses to overburden and underburden shows negligible
effects in this case (Lake 1989, Farouq Ali 1966). All pre-
4D processes are designed in the static window and applied
to the whole volume. Therefore, the pre-4D process corrects
time invariant changes. To quantify the repeatability issues,
we use the normalized root mean square (NRMS) concept. In
this method, the percentage-normalized RMS difference of the
two traces (say a
t
b
t
) from two different surveys within a
given window t
1
t
2
is computed using the formula (Kragh
and Christie 2002)
NRMS = 200
RMS(a b)
RMS(a) + RMS(b)
(6)
where NRMS is measured in per cent, and the RMS operator
is dened as
RMS(a
t
) =

_
t
2

t
1
(a
t
)
2
_
N (7)
where N is the number of samples in the time interval t
1
t
2
.
The value of NRMS is not limited to the range 0100%.
If both the traces contain random noise, the NRMS is 141%
(

2). If both traces are uncorrelated, the NRMS error attains

its maximum value i.e. 200%. Typical NRMS values for some
of the early 4D studies, like for instance the Gullfaks 4D study
(Landr 1999), are 6080%. For more recent 4D studies using
steerable streamer technology (Goto et al 2004) typical NRMS
values might be between 10 and 30%. However, for land data,
the NRMS values are often higher, due to acquisition problems
and seasonal changes within the near surface layers.
In this study, the pre-4Dprocess consists of three different
steps. First, a cross-correlation-based time shift is applied to
the monitor data. Second, a shaping lter is applied that
tries to match the wavelet of the data sets. Third, a cross-
normalization is applied to the monitor data to ensure the root
mean square (RMS) amplitude of common traces is similar.
23
H M Zadeh et al
The cross-correlation time-shift process computes a single
time shift in the static window (600750 ms), for each trace,
and tries to align the monitor data with baseline. The
correlation value is used as a quality control. If the maximum
value of correlation is small (less than 0.85), then the calculated
time shift is considered unreliable. Only time shifts with
correlation values more than 0.85 are applied to the monitor
data. The maximum time shift with this criterion reveals that
the baseline data are in average 2 ms earlier in time relative
to monitor data. The reason for this time shift might be
the variation of near surface velocity that is not completely
corrected by prestack statics. The NRMS improved to 48%,
in NRMS scale. This means that the repeatability of the data
is increased approximately by 10%.
Shaping lter is designed in the static windowand applied
to the entire data. The purpose of this WienerLevinson lter
is to construct a similar wavelet for monitor data to baseline
data in a least-squares sense (Yilmaz 1987). Since volumes
are assumed to be from a same subsurface and the wavelet
is consistent through the time, the lter matches the phase
and amplitude in the area with changes (reservoir) without
equalizing them (Rickett and Lumley 2001). In this study, we
use a global lter in the static window and include only the
trace pairs with correlation values above 0.85 in designing. In
this way, we estimate a more stable shaping lter and include
more repeatable and less noisy traces. A study of the NRMS
map of the differences in the static window, after applying
shaping lter, shows that the NRMS value decreased to 43%.
This indicated the effectiveness of the shaping lter in the
pre-4D process.
Cross normalization is a process that applies amplitude
correction on trace-by-trace or average basis. Here, we use
a global scaling factor extracted from the RMS amplitude of
the static window. This process decreased the NRMS value to
42%.
The NRMS map of the static zone after applying pre-4D
is shown in gure 12. The repeatability is improved after
applying the pre-4D process. However, areas with low fold,
i.e. mainly the survey corner, show lower repeatability.
8. Time-lapse data analysis
The data after applying the pre-4D process are analysed both
with respect to time shift and amplitude. To correct the time
shifts associated with injection velocity changes, we apply a
time-variant (TV) time shift process. This process implements
a cross-correlation-based time shift and tries to remove the
time differences between monitor and baseline for multiple
windows. A 40 ms sliding window which starts from 600 ms
and moves down one sample in time is used to cross-correlate
the monitor with baseline data. The result of the TVtime shifts
in this setup is shown in gure 13. The line is chosen in a way
that passes all four injectors. There are some big time shifts
for late arrival times that are probably caused by noise in the
data. There are time shifts presents in the overburden of the
injector B-162. There might be two reasons for the presence of
overburden time shift around this injector. First, the section,
line AA

in gure 12, passes the major fault near injector

B-162. Since the time shift associated with fault is affected by
relative movement of layers around the fault plane, it is less
likely that the time shift represents a real 4Danomaly. Second,
the injector B-162 is located in the lowfold area (see gure 11)
that has a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Therefore, the time shift
in this area is more affected by noise. To remove the big and
uncorrelated time shifts that are associated with noise, the time
shifts with correlation coefcients larger than 0.2 are applied
to the monitor data. Note that the low correlation coefcient
might also be due to injection. A map of time shift around
the top reservoir is revealed in gure 14. The map shows the
average time shifts in an 80 ms time window surrounding both
top and bottom of the reservoir. The anomalies around the
injectors (mainly B-147 and B-145) are noticeable and exhibit
approximately 2 ms time shift that is feasible. It is worth to
mention that the NRMS value in the static window improves
to 38% after TV time shift.
Amplitude analysis of the reservoir event after applying
TV time shift is shown in gure 15. This map shows the RMS
amplitude of differences in an 80 ms time window (including
both top and base reservoir). Despite the fact that the map
is noisy, there are clear anomalies around the injectors. The
extension of the biggest anomaly (injector B-147) corresponds
well with the reservoir engineering expectation of a 100 m
northwest movement of the front. Even an injector on the
left side of the fault (B-169) shows an anomaly. However,
we do not have enough information about this injector to
conrm the result. The anomalies in the middle (around
producers B-146, B-163 and B-191) which dominate the map
are probably due to production activities in this area. There is
an anomaly in the northeast corner of the map that we believe
is noise.
9. Discussion
From the analysis of the data, we nd that the 4D anomalies
around the injectors are better imaged on migrated data. The
synthetic modelling study from well B-183 shows that the
air injection creates an amplitude dimming (due to a velocity
decrease) at the top and an amplitude brightening at the base
of the reservoir. This corresponds well with the observed
amplitude anomalies, as well as with the observed travel time
shifts, up to 2 ms push down between baseline and monitor
survey.
Despite the fact that the RMS difference maps are noisy,
they show promising results. We see anomalies northwest of
injector B-147 and northwest and northeast of injector B-145
that were ignited rst. Even though the fold close to B-153 is
low, we observe the same type of anomaly also for this injector.
The noise in the map may be due to production activities in
the eld of which we do not have detailed information. We
observe that the anomaly is strongly shifted towards the north
and northwest. This result is conrmed by the increase of
production in two wells of the neighbouring eld (Lanwa
eld), located in north of Balol, shortly after the start of
24
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
Figure 11. The fold map of the Balol area. The injectors are indicated in the map by stars. The fold is low around 2 of the injectors (south
in the map). The distance between adjacent inline numbers is 10 m (as for crossline).
Figure 12. NRMS map of overburden (600750 ms time window) after applying the pre-4D process shows the repeatability of the data.
The repeatability is improved to 42% in the NRMS scale. The distance between adjacent inline numbers is 10 m (as for crossline). The
position of a random line (A-A

) that is passing all the injectors is shown (see gure 13).

injection (Kumar et al 2008). A similar result is obtained by
separate inversion of pre-stack migrated data volumes (Vedanti
and Sen 2009). The expectation of the in situ combustion front
movement was towards production wells in the east. However,
the unexpected movement, as delineated by seismic study, is
conrmed by other studies done in the eld. The cause for
25
H M Zadeh et al
Figure 13. A random line, passing all the injectors, shows the time shifts (in ms). The position of the line is shown in gure 12. Some of the
large time shifts in the late time are probably noise. Time shifts in the overburden, south of B-162 are probably caused by the fault zone.
Figure 14. Map of average time shifts around the top reservoir. An 80 ms window is chosen that include both top and bottom of the
reservoir and time shifts are averaged in the window. The distance between adjacent inline numbers is 10 m (as for crossline).
this northwest movement might be explained in at least two
different ways. The rst possible cause is that the structure
dips towards northwest, and hence the gas will tend to migrate
in the up-dip direction. The second possible cause might
be that the horizontal permeability is higher in the northwest
direction.
26
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
Figure 15. Map of RMS difference for the reservoir level (80 ms time window) after applying time variant (TV) time shift to monitor data.
The anomalies are consistent with the injectors and producers. The major fault in the map is conrmed to be sealed. The distance between
adjacent inline numbers is 10 m (as for crossline).
10. Conclusions
We observe prominent 4D amplitude anomalies near all four
injectors. The areal extent of the mapped anomalies varies
from well to well. The clearest anomalies have a radius of
approximately 100 m. The reservoir engineering expectation
is around 50 m/year, and since the second monitor survey
was acquired after 2 years, the 4D seismic observation is in
agreement with the reservoir engineering expectation.
The repeatability level of the monitor survey compared
to the base survey over the Balol eld is relatively low:
approximately 60% measured in NRMS error. Despite this
fact, it is possible to interpret anomalies close to four of
the injectors that have been active between the base and the
monitor survey. The same anomalies are also found when
comparing the base and the rst monitor, but these anomalies
are comparable to the background noise. Due to increased
gas saturation within the reservoir zone, a decreased P-wave
velocity is expected. Fluid substitution combined with
convolution modelling predicts a 4D amplitude decrease at the
top reservoir and a 4Damplitude increase at the base reservoir.
This is also found when a detailed comparison between the
base and the second monitor survey is performed. However,
the magnitude of the observed changes in the eld data is
signicantly larger than the synthetic values. This difference
in amplitude of synthetic and eld data might be due to noise in
the eld data. A time shift of approximately 2 ms is expected
based on the well modelling. Comparison with time shift
estimation from the time-lapse seismic data shows time shifts
in the same order, although the estimated time shifts are noisy
and not as consistent as the amplitude changes. There is no
clear evidence of air leaking into sand layers below or above
the reservoir sand. This does not necessarily mean that such
leakage is not occurring, since the 4D detectability is limited,
mainly due to the low repeatability level.
Acknowledgments
The nancial support from the Indo-Norwegian program for
institutional cooperation is highly appreciated. Without this
sponsorship, the cooperation between NGRI and NTNUwould
not have been possible. We also thank ONGC for providing
the eld data from the Balol Field, and for permission to
present the result of our analysis. We are greatly indebted
to the kind help and assistance especially from Apurba Saha,
D.P. Sinha, M.P. Singh and Asit Kumar, all of ONGC.

Asmund
Sjen Pedersen and Andrew Morton are acknowledged for
their kind support during the loading of the eld data. The
Research Council of Norway (NFR) is acknowledged for
nancial support to the ROSE project at NTNU. We would
like to acknowledge Tom Davis for useful discussions and
kind help. Finally, the anonymous referees are acknowledged
for useful and constructive comments.
Appendix. 3D seismic processing sequence
The processing sequence applied on both baseline and monitor
data is
27
H M Zadeh et al
SEGY input.
3D binning with bin size of 10 10 m.
Field statics.
True amplitude recovery (TAR).
Bandpass lter (81290120 Hz).
Editing.
Surface wave noise attenuation to attenuate the ground
rolls and not damage the signal amplitude. This process
transforms the data from the time-space domain to the
frequency-space domain, where it performs a frequency-
dependent mix of adjacent traces.
Surface consistent amplitude balancing.
Surface consistent deconvolution.
Bandpass lter (81280100 Hz).
Editing.
Sorting.
Velocity analysis (200 200 m).
Residual statics.
Velocity analysis.
Pre stack time migration (PSTM).
RMS velocity renement over PSTM gathers at every
10th line (100 m).
Pre stack time migration with rened velocity.
The same velocity eld is used for stacking both baseline
and monitor data.
References
Avseth A P, Mukerji T and Mavko G 2005 Quantitative Seismic
Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce
Interpretation Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
p 359
Batzle M and Wang Z 1992 Seismic properties of pore uids
Geophysics 57 1396408
Bianco E, Kaplan S and Schmitt D 2008 Seismic rock physics of
steam injection in bituminous oil reservoirs TLE 27 11327
Burger J 1976 Spontaneous ignition in oil reservoirs SPE 16 7381
Castagna J P, Batzle M L and Eastwood R L 1985 Relationship
between compressional wave and shear wave velocities in
clastic silicate rocks Geophysics 50 57181
Chi G and Xu Q 2007 Petrography and microthermometry of uid
inclusions in oil sands and heavy oil deposits from Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin CSEG Expanded Abstracts 6601
Das A and Batzle M 2008 Modeling studies of heavy oil-in between
solid and uid properties TLE 27 11623
DeVilbiss J, Ito H and Nur A 1979 Measurement of compressional
and shear wave velocities of water lled rocks during water
steam transition Geophysics 44 407
Doriah A, Ray S and Gupta P 2007 In-situ combustion technique to
enhance heavy oil recovery at Mehsana, ONGC- a success
story SPE 105248
Duffaut K and Landr M 2007 V
P
/V
S
ratio versus differential stress
and rock consolidationA comparison between rock models
and time-lapse AVO data Geophysics 72 C8194
Dumitrescu C C and Lines L 2008 Seismic attributes used for
reservoir simulation: application to a heavy oil reservoir in
Canada CSEG Expanded Abstracts 27 14714
Farouq Ali S M 1966 Marx and Langenheims model of steam
injection Producers monthly 30 28
Goto R, Lowden D, Smith P and Paulsen J O 2004 Steered streamer
4D case study over the Norne eld SEG Expanded Abstracts 23
222730
Gray D, Anderson P and Gunderson J 2004 Examination of
wide-angle, multi-component, AVO attributes for prediction of
shale in heavy oil sands: a case study from the Long Lake
Project, Alberta, Canada SEG Expanded Abstracts
23 1599602
Greaves R J and Fulp T J 1987 Three-dimensional seismic
monitoring of an enhanced oil recovery process
Geophysics 52 117587
Gregory A R 1977 Aspects of rock physics from laboratory and log
data that are important to seismic interpretation AAPG Mem.
26 1546
Hashin Z and Shtrikman S 1963 A variational approach to the
elastic behavior of multiphase materials J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 2 12740
Hedlin K, Mewhort L and Margrave G 2001 Delineation of steam
ood using seismic attenuation SEG Expanded Abstracts
20 15725
Han D, Liu J and Baztle M 2008 Seismic properties of heavy
oilsmeasured data TLE 27 110815
Isaac J H and Lawton D C 2006 A case history of time-lapse 3D
seismic surveys at Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada
Geophysics 71 B93
Jenkins S D, Waite M W and Bee M F 1997 Time-lapse monitoring
of the Duri steamood: a pilot and case study TLE 16 126773
Kragh E D and Christie P 2002 Seismic repeatability, normalized
rms, and predictability TLE 21 6407
Kumar A., Bhattacharya N and Kharoo H L 2008 Time-lapse
inversion for monitoring in-situ combustion process in Balol
eld, India SPG Expanded Abstracts 7th International Conf. &
Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics p 293
Kumar A, Bhattacharyya N and Mohan S 2006 Cross-equalization
for time lapse study in Balol eld, India SPG Expanded
Abstracts 6th International Conf. & Exposition on Petroleum
Geophysics pp 114348
Kumar A and Mohan S 2004 Feasibility assessment of a time lapse
seismic survey for thermal EOR in Balol eld, India, based on
rock physics and seismic forward modeling SPG Expanded
Abstracts 5th International Conf. & Exposition on Petroleum
Geophysics pp 68895
Lake L W 1989 Enhanced Oil Recovery (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall) p 498
Landr M 1999 Repeatability issues of 3-D VSP data
Geophysics 64 16739
Landr M and Stammeijer J 2004 Quantitative estimation of
compaction and velocity changes using 4D impedance and
travel time changes Geophysics 69 94957
Li G, Purdue G, Weber S and Couzens R 2001 Effective processing
of nonrepeatable 4-D seismic data to monitor heavy oil SAGD
steam ood at East Senlac, Saskatchewan, Canada Leading
Edge 20 54
Lumley D E 1995 4-D seismic monitoring of an active steamood
SEG Expanded Abstracts 14 2036
Macrides C G, Kanasewich E R and Bharatha S 1988 Multiborehole
seismic imaging in steam injection heavy oil recovery projects
Geophysics 53 6575
Mavko G, Mukerji T and Dvorkin J 1998 The Rock Physics
Handbook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
p 329
Mayo L 1996 Seismic monitoring of foamy heavy oil, Lloydminster,
Western Canada SEG Expanded Abstracts 15 20914
Mukherjee T K, Chattopadhyay S K and Panchanan G K 2006 The
Impact of sealing fault on enhanced oil recoverya case study
from northern part of Balol eld 6th Int. Conf. and Expo. on
Petroleum Geophysics (Kolkata, India) pp 133841
Nur A and Simmons G 1969 The effect of viscosity of a
uid phase on velocity in low porosity rocks EPSL
7 99108
Nur A, Tosaya C and Vo-Thanh D 1984 Seismic monitoring of
thermal enhanced oil recovery processes SEG Expanded
Abstracts 3 33740
28
Seismic monitoring of the in situ combustion process in a heavy oil eld
Rickett J E and Lumley D E 2001 Cross-equalization data
processing for time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring:
a case study from the Gulf of Mexico Geophysics
66 1015
Schmitt D R 1999 Seismic attributes for monitoring of a shallow
heated heavy oil reservoir: a case study Geophysics
64 36877
Sigit R, Morse P J and Kimber K D 1999 4-D seismic that
works: a successful large scale application, Duri Steamood,
Sumatra, Indonesia SEG Expanded Abstracts
18 20558
Tadema H J and Weijdema J 1970 Spontaneous ignition of oil sand
Oil Gas J. 68 7780
Vasquez M and Beggs H D 1980 Correlations for uid physical
property predictions JPT 32 96870
Vedanti N and Sen M K 2009 Seismic inversion tracks in situ
combustion: a case study from Balol oil eld, India
Geophysics 74 B10312
Waite M W and Sigit R 1997 Seismic monitoring of the Duri
steamood: application to reservoir management TLE 16
12758
Yilmaz O 1987 Seismic Data Processing (Tulsa, USA: Society of
Exploration Geophysicists) vol 2 pp 1035
Zou Y, Bentley L R and Lines L R 2003 Seismic modelling for a
heavy oil reservoir time-lapse study SEG Expanded Abstracts
22 14425
29