Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Jack P. Dvorkin
JD 2008
1. Problem Formulation
1.2
Rock and fluid prediction away from well control requires understanding of how rock's bulk and seismic properties are linked to each other and how they vary with geologic age, depth, and location.
Existing Well
PROSPECT
The main question of remote sensing is: What reservoir properties may stand behind the seismic amplitude?
1.3
METHODS OF PREDICTION
Forward Modeling of Seismic Response
AVO Class I
Depending on the selected elastic properties of the overburden and reservoir, we model various classes of AVO response.
AVO Class II
I p = bV p
2 1 (V p /Vs ) 2 PR = 2 (V p /Vs ) 2 1
1.4
METHODS OF PREDICTION
Forward Modeling of Seismic Response from Rock Properties
AVO Class I
The AVO response changes with the compaction of shale which may be depth-driven.
AVO Class II
1.5
METHODS OF PREDICTION
Forward Modeling of Seismic Response versus Fluid
1.6
Laboratory Measurements. Hans (1986) laboratory data set includes over 60 sandstone samples of medium to low porosity and zero to 50% clay content. Shown below is a P-wave velocity versus porosity cross-plot for a subset of these data. The measurements shown below are for room-dry samples at 40 MPa confining pressure and atmospheric pore pressure (air). All data. Data color-coded by clay content.
1.7
WET
DRY
1.8
Decreasing GOR
1.9
1.10
Impedance-porosity cross-plots show effects of clay (left) and compaction (right). Impedance versus Poisson's ratio. Left: at in-situ conditions, right: wet.
1.11
1.12
15 m
0 0.5 VSHALE AND Sw
0.3
6 8 Ip (km/s g/cc)
10
10
Ip (km/s g/cc)
8 SHALE SAND
0.1
POROSITY
0.2
0.3
1.13
10
Ip (km/s g/cc)
8 SHALE SAND
0.1
POROSITY
0.2
0.3
Porosity Strata Slice from 3D Seismic Data and Rock Physics Trend
1.14
1.15
Wrong Porosity
Gas Sand
1.16