Download - Acoustic Properties
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
1/12
Generating Continuous
Im
Copyright 2010
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010held in Denver, Colorado October 17-22, 2010.
Introduction
In previous publications (Holmes andRock Physics models of Gassmann (19(1990) were combined with petrophysito derive pseudo acoustic logs both cand shear from other standard open-h
Rock Physics, when linked with PetropModeling, has a wide range of applicati
Figure 1: Examples of Rock Physics anmodeling applications
The conceptspresented in this
paper are anintegration of
petrophysics andgeophysics
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado,
1
Logs of Matrix and Shale Acoustic Pr
roved Formation Evaluation
Michael HolmesAntony Holmes
EG annual meeting,
olmes, 2005)51) and Kriefal modeling,mpressional
ole logs.
hysicalions:
Petrophysical
A procedure is described wherebofsolids thematrixandshalec can be generated for :
Compressional acoustic
Shear acoustic data DT
Density log data RhoB
The deterministic calculations arrock physics modeling procedureto the Gassmann approach. Valican be verified by reconstructing
comparing with original data.
Output from the calculations areshowing variation with depth of:
DTPmatrix
DTPshale
DTSmatrix
DTSshale
RhoBmatrix
RhoBshale
From these curves, it is possible t
depth, each of the three log respo Shale
Matrix
Porosity
ctober 17-22, 2010
perties for
continuous curvesomponents of rocks
data DTP
based on Kriefs, which are similarity of the resultspseudo logs and
series of curves,
o calculate, by
nses contributed by:
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
2/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
2
Method
Equations used in the Krief model are includedbelow. For a petrophysical solution, VPand Vsarereplaced by reciprocal velocity interval transit time,or acoustic slowness DTP and DTS:
The Biot model equations are written as follows:
While substituting:
Where:
and making use of the following relations:
Table 1: Listing of symbols used in the Kriefequation, and their definitions
Symbol DefinitionDTP Interval transit time of
compressional waveDTS interval transit time of shear
waveRhoB, b density of the formation
e effective porosity of the
formation, exclusive of thepore-space water associated
with the shale fractiont total porosity, including pore-
space water associated withthe shale fraction
Sxo
water saturation of the filtrate-flushed zone
Sw water saturation of the
uninvaded zone shear modulus (S wave
propagation)K elastic modulus (body waves)
B Biot compressibility constant
Vsh volume shale
MB Bulk elastic modulusSubscript Definition
Xma matrix (solid phase exclusiveof clay fraction)
Xmf mud filtrateXhc Hydrocarbons
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
3/12
In our petrophysical solution to the Kriporosity, shale, and saturations are calcnon-acoustic logs. Then, using the Kritogether with published information onshear moduli, pseudo DTP and DTS cugenerated for a full range of fluid substoil/water and gas/water systems. Assumodeling procedure is perfect, the pseucurves should match the measured logssaturation values that exist in the reservmight speculate that, for the DTP and dsatuation is Sxo, whereas for the deeperlogs it is Sw.
A generalized model of porous rock is
Figure 2: Generalized model of porous r
As defined here,shaleis composed ofwith associated bound water, and silt.of very fine grained clastic and/or calcoften about 50% of the shale volume.petrophysical viewpoint, silt is difficultquantitatively from clay. Shaleshavegamma ray responses. Matrixis defin
clay mineral grains and probably inclumaterial similar to the silts associatedshales.
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado,
3
f equations,ulated usingf equations,bulk andrves areitution
ing the entiredo acousticfor theoir. Oneensity logs thereading DTS
hown:
ck
lay minerals,ilt is made upreous materialrom ato distinguishostly high
d as the non-
es silt-sizedith clays in
Effective Porosity and containedremainder of the rock. The contaof water and other fluids, mostly
As defined in this paper,shales+
One of the important results of thability to define, for each of thecurves, the contribution of each ocomponents to the total log respo
Figure 3: Example of porous rockdata from the Bakken oil reservoir
An important observation is thatcontribution of acoustic responsemuch higher than for the densityshaleresponse is about the same
Percentagematrix
response is hilog as compared with acoustic lo
ctober 17-22, 2010
fluids make up theined fluids consistil and/or gas.
matrix=solids.
is study is theTP, DTS and RhoBf the 3 majornse.
odel with actual
the porosityto total response is
og. Percentageor all 3 logs.
her for the densitys.
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
4/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver,
Calculation Procedures
Initial petrophysical processing consistdeterministic calculations:
Shale Volume frequently
ray log, or from a
combination (but not in gas Total Porosity be
density/neutron combinatresults are least affected b
and changing matrix proper
Effective porosity by subound water from total poro
Water saturation fromnumber of equations.
calculation that is the least r
The second stage involves solutionmodel, to calculate pseudo acoustic anBy comparing the pseudo logs withzone parameters of the solids canminimize differences.
A third procedure, again involving this employed to generate continuoussolids. Using zone values as a startina level-by-level basis, an initial matrito predict a shale value, to minimibetween pseudo and actual data. Thisin turn used to predict the matrixprocedure is iterated until differences
The end result is continuous curvesshale.
To avoid the problem of nopermissible curve ranges for the solidto 50% of the original input. The finthis procedure are recognized asreconstructed.
A final check on validity of the recthrough calculations of reconstructporosity logs.
olorado, October 17-22, 2010
4
of standard
from a gamma
ensity/neutron
reservoirs)st from aion, because
fluid content
ies
btracting claysity
any one of aOften the
eliable
to the Kriefd density logs.
easured data,e adjusted to
Krief model,curves of thepoint, and onvalue is used
ze differencesshalevalue is
value. There minimized.
of matrix and
-convergence,are restricted
al curves fromthe Krief
nstructions isd volumetric
Figure 4: Flow chart of calculation/i
As an independent checDT and RhoB from vol
compare with original DTfluid input as necessary t
Using an iterative approacalculate matrixand shaAdditional refinement of o
and shalemig
Compare pseudo logsmatrixand shalezone
improve
Run Krief model to calculDTS and ps
Deter
DTma, DTsh, Rhoma, Rhos
Basic petrophysi
e,t, Vsh
teration procedure
k, determine theoreticalmetric equations andnd RhoB curves. Adjust
o obtain the best match.
h within the Krief model,leas continuous curves.riginal zone input matrixt be required.
ith actual logs. Adjustinput as necessary tomatch.
te pseudo DTP, pseudoudo RhoB.
ine:
, and Krief components
al calculations:
, Sw, Shc
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
5/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
5
Examples
1. Oil reservoir: Teapot Dome, Wyoming2. Oil Reservoir: Bakken Formation, Montana3. Shale Gas Reservoir: Western Canada4. Tight Gas Sand: Piceance Basin, Colorado
The following template is used for data presentation of all examples:
Figure 5: Description of template used for examples:Track 1: Petrophysical e, Vsh, Sw, Soor SgTracks 2 and 3: DTP and DTS original and pseudo curves (Krief Modeling)
Tracks 4 and 5: DTP solids and DTP comparisons volumetric modelingTracks 6 and 7: DTS solids and DTS comparisons volumetric modelingTracks 8 and 9: RhoB solids and RhoB comparisons volumetric modeling
1 83 4 5 6 7 92
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
6/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
6
Figure 6: Example from an oil reservoir, Teapot Dome, Wyoming
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
7/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
7
Figure 7: Oil reservoir, Bakken Formation, Montana
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
8/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
8
Figure 8: Example from a shale gas reservoir in Western Canada
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
9/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
9
Figure 9: DTP shale vs. resistivity from a shale gas reservoir in Western Canada
Figure 10: DTS shale vs. resistivity from a shale gas reservoir in Western Canada
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
10/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
10
Figure 11: Example from tight gas sand in the Piceance Basin, Colorado
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
11/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
11
Figure 12: DTP shale vs. DTP matrixfrom tight gas sand in the Piceance Basin, Colorado
Figure 13: DTS shale vs. DTS matrixfrom tight gas sand in the Piceance Basin, Colorado
-
8/13/2019 Acoustic Properties
12/12
SEG 2010 Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 17-22, 2010
12
Conclusions
The technique allows for distinction betweenshale,matrix, and free porosity, together with their fluidcontent, in contribution to log responses for:
DTP DTS RhoB
Examination of changes with depth ofshaleandmatrixproperties helps in understanding changingrock properties with depth.
The reconstructed logs, when compared with originallog measurements, will indicate whether or not thesolids curve calculations are correct. Mismatches canmean one of three possibilities:
Incorrect calibration of properties whichinfluence log responses
An incorrect basic model Inconsistencies among logs used in the
calculations
A suggested geophysical application is to use thesolidscurves as a starting point, and then addporosity and contained fluids at specified levels togenerate a series of theoretical acoustic and densityprofiles. This procedure could be used to modeldifferent degrees of porosity development, and then
apply to defining seismic signatures.
References
1. Holmes, et al Petrophysical Rock PhysicsModeling: A comparison of the Krief andGassmann Equations, and applications toverifying and estimating compressional andshear velocities Presented at the SPWLA46thAnnual Logging Symposium, 2005
2. Holmes, et al Pressure Effects on Porosity-Log Responses Using Rock PhysicsModeling: Implications on Geophysical andEngineering Models as Reservoir PressureDecreases Presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition , 2005.
3. Crain, E.R., The Log AnalysisHandbook1986, Penn Well Books.
4. Gassmann, F., ber Die Elastizitt porserMedien 1951, Vier. der Natur. Gesellschaftin Zrich, 96 1-23.
5. Krief, M., Garar, J., Stellingwerff, J., andVentre, J.,A petrophysical interpretationusing the velocities of P and S waves (full-waveform sonic) The Log Analyst, 31,November, 1990, 355-369.
6. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J., TheRock Physics Handbook 1998, CambridgeUniversity Press.
About the Authors
Michael Holmeshas a Ph.D. from the University ofLondon in geology and a MSc. from the ColoradoSchool of Mines in Petroleum Engineering. Hisprofessional career has involved employment withBritish Petroleum, Shell Canada, Marathon OilCompany and H.K. van Poollen and Associates. Forthe past 20 years he has worked on petrophysicalanalyses for reservoirs worldwide under the auspicesof Digital Formation, Inc.
Antony M. Holmeshas a BS in Computer Sciencefrom the University of Colorado. He has beeninvolved with the development of petrophysicalsoftware for 20 years with Digital Formation, Inc.,particularly with regards to the implementation ofpetrophysical analyses.
Denver Place South Tower
999 18thStreet, Suite 2410
Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
main: 303-770-4235
toll-free: 888-747-5372
facsimile: 303-770-0432
www.DigitalFormation.com
General Inquiries