Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SUMMARY Time-lapse resistivity tomography bring valuable information on the physical changes occurring inside a geological reservoir. In this study, resistivity monitoring from controlled source electromagnetics (CSEM) data is investigated through synthetic and real data. We present three different schemes currently used to perform time-lapse inversions and compare these three methods: parallel, sequential and double difference. We demonstrate on synthetic tests that double difference scheme is the best way to perform time-lapse inversion when the survey parameters are fixed between the different time-lapse acquisitions. We show that double difference inversion allows to remove the imprint of correlated noise distortions, static shifts and most of the non-linearity of the inversion process including numerical noise and acquisition footprint. It also appears that this approach is robust against the baseline resistivity model quality, and even a rough starting resistivity model built from borehole logs or basic geological knowledge can be sufficient to map the time-lapse changes at their right positions. We perform these comparisons with real land time-lapse CSEM data acquired one year apart over the Reykjanes geothermal field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bretaudeau et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: