A Critical Comparison of Three Methods for Time-Lapse Time-Shift Calculation


Time-shift, one of the most popular time-lapse seismic attributes, has been widely used in dynamic reservoir characterization by linking it with pressure and geomechanical changes. Therefore, it is important to select appropriate calculation methods according to different time-lapse seismic data quality and time-shift magnitude. To date, there have been various published works comparing different time-shift calculation methods and discussing their advantages and disadvantages. However, most of these comparisons are based only on synthetic tests or single field applications. As the quality of time-lapse seismic data and time-shift magnitude can vary in different fields, one method may not work consistently well for each case. In this paper, a critical comparison of three different time-shift calculation techniques (Hale’s fast cross-correlation, Rickett’s non-linear inversion, and Whitcombe’s correlated leakage method) is provided. The three methods are applied to a set of synthetic data sets that are designed to account for various seismic noise and time-shift magnitudes. They are also applied to four real time-lapse seismic data sets from three North Sea fields. The calculated time-shift results are compared with the input (in synthetic tests) or the real observations from information such as seabed subsidence and compaction (in field applications). Both qualitative and quantitative comparisons are performed. At the end, each of the time-shift methods is evaluated based on different aspects, and the most appropriate method is suggested for each data scenario. All three time-shift methods are found to successfully measure time-shifts. However, Rickett’s non-linear inversion is the most outstanding method, as it gives smooth time-shifts with relatively good accuracy, and the derived time strains are more stable and interpretable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20


  1. Behrens R, Condon P, Haworth W, et al (2001) 4D seismic monitoring of water influx at Bay Marchand: the practical use of 4D in an imperfect world. In: 2001 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana, p SPE 71329

  2. Buizard S, Bertrand A, Nielsen KM, et al (2013) Ekofisk life of field seismic: 4D processing. In: 75th EAGE conference & exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2013, London, UK

  3. Falahat R (2012) Quantitative monitoring of gas injection, exsolution and dissolution using 4D seismic. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fehmers GC, Hunt K, Brain JP, et al (2007) Curlew D: pushing the boundaries of 4D depletion signal in a gas condensate field, UK Central North Sea. In: EAGE 69th conference & exhibition. London, UK, p P074

  5. Fletcher J (2004) Rock and fluid physics understanding the impact of pressure changes: what do petroleum engineers expect from time lapse seismic, and do geophysicists answer the right questions? In: SPE/EAGE Joint Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, 23–25 March 2004

  6. Folstad PG (2010) Monitoring of the Ekofisk field. Geo ExPro 7:72–76

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fuck RF, Bakulin A, Tsvankin I (2007) Time-lapse traveltime shifts above compacting reservoirs: 3D solutions for prestack data. In: SEG 2007 annual meeting. San Antonio

  8. Grandi A, Wauquier S, Cumming H et al (2009) Quantitative 4D time lapse characterisation: three examples. In: SEG Houston 2009 international exposition and annual meeting, Houston, USA, pp 3815–3819. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255662

  9. Gubbins D (2004) Time series analysis and inverse theory for geophysicists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hajnasser Y (2012) The implications of shale geomechanics and pressure diffusion for 4D interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK

  11. Hale D (2007) A method for estimating apparent displacement vectors from time-lapse seismic images. In: SEG/San Antonio 2007 annual meeting. pp 2939–2943

  12. Hale D (2009) A method for estimating apparent displacement vectors from time-lapse seismic images. Geophysics 74(5):V99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall SA, MacBeth CA, Barkved OI, Wild P (2002) Time-lapse seismic monitoring of compaction and subsidence at Valhall through crossmatching and interpreted warping of 3D streamer and OBC data. In: 72nd SEG annual international meeting. Salt Lake City, Utah, pp 1696–1699

  14. Hatchell P, Bourne S (2005) Rocks under strain: strain-induced time-lapse time shifts are observed for depleting reservoirs. Lead Edge 24:1222–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hatchell P, Van Den Beukel A, Molenaar M et al (2003) Whole earth 4D: reservoir monitoring geomechanics. In: 73rd SEG meeting, Dallas, USA. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1817532

  16. Hodgson N (2009) Inversion for reservoir pressure change using overburden strain measurements determined from 4D seismic. Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK

  17. Kanu C, Toomey A, Hodgson L et al (2016) Evaluation of time-shift extraction methods on a synthetic model with 4D geomechanical changes. Leading Edge 35:888–893. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle35100888.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kloosterman HJ, Kelly RS, Stammeijer J et al (2003) Successful application of time-lapse seismic data in shell expro's gannet fields, Central North Sea, UKCS. Pet Geosci 9:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1144/1354-079302-513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Koster K, Gabriels P, Hartung M et al (2000) Time-lapse seismic surveys in the North Sea and their business impact. Leading Edge 19:286–293. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kragh E, Christie P (2002) Seismic repeatability, normalized RMS, and predictability. Lead Edge 21:640–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kvendseth SS (1988) Giant discovery: a history of ekofisk through the first 20 years. Phillips Petroleum Company Norway

  22. Landrø M (2001) Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from marine multicomponent time-lapse seismic data. Geophysics 66:836–844. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1620633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Landrø M, Janssen R (2002) Estimating compaction and velocity changes from time-lapse near and far offset stacks. In 64th EAGE conference & exhibition. Florence, Italy, p P036

  24. Landrø M, Stammeijer J (2004) Quantitative estimation of compaction and velocity changes using 4D impedance and traveltime changes. Geophysics 69(4):949–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lie EO (2011) Constrained timeshift estimation. In: 73rd EAGE conference & exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011. Vienna, Austria, p G038

  26. MacBeth C, Mangriotis M, Hatchell P (2016) Evaluation of the spurious time-shift problem. In: SEG International exposition and 86th annual meeting. P 5457-5462

  27. MacBeth C, Mangriotis MD, Amini H (2019) Post-stack 4D seismic time-shifts: Interpretation and evaluation. Geophys Prospect 67:3–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin K, Macdonald C (2010) The Schiehallion field : applying a geobody modelling approach to piece together a complex turbidite field. In: 7th European production and development conference, Aberdeen, UK

  29. Nickel M, Schlaf J, Sonneland L (2001) New tools for 4D seismic analysis in carbonate reservoirs. In: SEG exposition and annual meeting, San Antonio, Texas

  30. Rickett J, Duranti L, Hudson T, et al (2006) Compaction and 4-D time strain at the Genesis Field. In: SEG/New Orleans 2006 annual meeting, 2006, New Orleans, USA, pp 3215–3219

  31. Rickett J, Duranti L, Hudson T et al (2007) 4D time strain and the seismic signature of geomechanical compaction at Genesis. Lead Edge 26:644. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2737103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sulak RM, Danielsen J (1989) Reservoir aspects of Ekofisk subsidence. J Pet Technol 41:709–716. https://doi.org/10.2118/17852-pa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tolstukhin E, Lyngnes B, Sudan H. (2012) Ekofisk 4D seismic: seismic history matching workflow. In: EAGE annual conference & exhibition incorporating SPE Europec, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 4–7

  34. Whitcombe DN, Paramo P, Philip N, et al (2010) The correlated leakage method: it’s application to better quantify timing shifts on 4D data. In: 72nd EAGE conference & exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010, p B037

  35. Williamson P, Cherrett A, Sexton P (2007) A new approach to warping for quantitative time–lapse characterisation. In: 69th EAGE conference & exhibition, London, UK

  36. Wong M (2017) Pressure and saturation estimation from PRM timelapse seismic data for a compacting reservoir. Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK

  37. Zabihi Naeini E (2013) TT domain time shift estimation. In: 75th EAGE conference & exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2013, pp 10–13

Download references


We want to thank the industry sponsors of the Edinburgh Time-Lapse Project (ETLP) Phase V and VI (BG, BP, CGG, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, Hess, Ikon, Landmark, Maersk, Nexen, Norsar, OMV, Petoro, Petrobras, RSI, Shell, Statoil, Suncor, TAQA, TGS, and Total) for funding this research. We want to give special thanks to Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron for providing seismic data for this study. Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Yiqun Zhang and the ETLP research team for their support in completing this study.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lu Ji.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ji, L., MacBeth, C. & Mangriotis, MD. A Critical Comparison of Three Methods for Time-Lapse Time-Shift Calculation. Math Geosci 53, 55–80 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-019-09834-4

Download citation


  • Time-shift calculation
  • Time-lapse seismic
  • Methods comparison
  • Cross-correlation
  • Non-linear inversion