S U M M A R YCrosswell seismic data recorded at 620-650 m offsets in an oil-bearing sand/shale reservoir formation at the Liaohe Oil Field, northeast China, provide robust evidence for waveguide action by low-velocity reservoir layers. Crosswell-section velocity models derived from survey-well sonic logs and further constrained by observed waveguide seismic wavegroup amplitudes and phases yield plausible evidence for interwell reservoir-sand continuity and discontinuity. A pair of back-to-back Liaohe crosswell vector-seismic surveys were conducted using a source well between two sensor wells at 650 and 620 m offsets along a 200-m-thick reservoir formation dipping 7 • down-to-east between depths of 2.5 and 3 km. A downhole orbital vibrator generated seismic correlation wavelets with frequency range 50-350 Hz and signal/noise ratio up to 5:1 over local downhole ambient noise. The sensor wells were instrumented with a mobile 12-to 16-level string of clamped vector-motion sensor modules at 5 m intervals. Using 5 m source depth increments, crosswell Surveys 1 and 2 cover source/sensor well intervals above and through the reservoir of, respectively, 600 m/600 m (13 000 vector traces in 9 common sensor fans) and 300 m/560 m (7000 vector traces in 7 common sensor fans). Survey 1 common sensor gathers show clear, consistent high-amplitude 20 ms waveletgroup lags behind the first-arrival traveltime envelope. Such arrivals are diagnostic of seismic lowvelocity waveguides connecting the source and sensor wells. Observed Survey 1 retarded wavegroup depths tally with source and sensor depths in low-velocity layers identified in sonic well logs. Finite-difference acoustic model wavefields computed for waveguide acoustic layers constrained by well-log sonic velocity data match the observed waveguide traveltime and amplitude systematics. Model waveforms duplicate the observed m-scale and ms-scale sensitivity of waveguide spatio-temporal energy localization. Survey 2 crosswell data, in contrast, provide no comparable evidence for waveguide action despite a sensor-well sonic well log similar to that of Survey 1. Instead, acoustic wavefield modelling of Survey 2 data clearly favours an interpreted waveguide model with 10 • downdip interrupted by a 75-100 m throw downfault near the sensor well. The absence of clear waveguide arrivals is adequately explained by dispersal of waveguide energy at the fault discontinuity. Auxiliary well sonic velocity and lithologic logs confirm the model-implied 75-100 m of down-throw faulting near the sensor well.

No abstract

No abstract