Seismic 13 583

1.0
0
1
0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 .I 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
V6, KM /SEC

I KOERPERICH, 1979, SILTSTONE, SONIC LOG (15 KHz)

DEASTWOOD AND CASTAGNA, 1983, WOLFCAMP SHALE, SONIC LOG (10 KHz)
A OIL SHALE, SONIC LOG, (25 KHz)
+ LINGLE AND JONES, 1977, DEVONIAN SHALE, SONIC LOG
HAMILTON, 1976, PIERRE SHALE
HAMILTON, 1976, GRAYSON SHALE
8 HAMILTON, 1976, JAPANESE SHALE
a LASH, 1980, GULF COAST SEDIMENTS, VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILE
A SHALE, SONIC LOG, INVERTED STONELEY WAVE VELOCITIES, (1 KHz)
..*. HAMILTON, 1976, MUDSTONES
_-- EBENIRO, 1981, GULF COAST SEDIMENTS, SURFACE WAVE INVERSION
$ TOSAYA’S “CLAY” POINT (EXTRAPOLATION FROM LABORATORY DATA)

FIG. 1. Compressionaland shear-wave velocitiesfor mudrocks from In-situ sonic and seismic measurements.

concentrationsof elongate pores would tend to plot along Discussion

this line.
Assumingdry bulk modulus equal to dry rigidity, Gass-
mann’s equations allow the computation of V, given V,,.
porosity, and the grain and fluid densitiesand bulk moduli.
We computed shear-wave velocities for sandstone core
porositiesand sonic log compressionalvelocitiesfor depths
from 2 500 to 14 500 ft in two wells 500 ft apart in Brazoria
County, Texas. The resulting V,,-Vr relationshipis in excel-
lent agreementwith our sandstoneobservations.Similarly,
we compare the calculated shear velocities to measured
laboratory values. The differencesare usually less than 5
percent,demonstratingexcellentagreementwith the theory.
Since part of thesedifferencesmust be due to experimental
error and due to our assumption that the matrix is 100
percent quartz, we consider the agreement remarkable.
Cdmbination of Gassmann’s equation and the time-average
equation yields a line which describesthe water-saturated
laboratorydata extremely well. The resultsof crack model-
ing indicate that one explanation for the validity of this
empirical formula would be the dominance of high aspect
ratio pores.
In recent yearsthere has been movementtowardsthe use
of V,,, V,, and V,,/V, in seismicexplorationfor estimationof
porosity, lithology. and saturatingfluids in particularstrati-
graphicintervals. The above analysisboth complicatesand
enlightenssuch interpretation. It is clear that clay content
increases the VP/V,. as does porosity. The analyses of
Tosaya (1982) and Eastwood and Castagna(1983) indicate
that while I’,#, is lesssensitiveto variation of clay content
than of porosity, the range of variation in clay content may
be larger. Thus, V,,/V,, can be grossly dependenton clay
content.
The compressionalvelocity and porosity data given by
Gregory (1977) are used to establishthe Gulf Coast VJV.,
variation with depth. Equation (I) is used to predict V, for
the shales. and Gassmann’s equations are used for the
sandstones.At a given depth, shalevelocity ratiosare on the
order of 10 percent higherthan sandstonevelocity ratios.
These conclusionsare somewhatat odds with the “con-
ventionalwisdom” that Vp/V,s equals I .5 to 1.7 in sandstones
and “over 2” in shales.Clearly, mappingnet sandfrom V,,/
 Seismic 13
V, is not as straightforwardas this conventional wisdom
would imply.
Conclusions
To first order, we conclude that shear-wave velocity is
nearly linearly related to, compressional-wavevelocity for
both water-saturatedand dry elastic silicate sedimentary
rocks. Water-saturatedvelocities for mudrocks and sand-
stonesfall within an elongate triangular region defined by
clay-water, clay-quartz, and quartz-water curves. For a
given VP, mudrockstend towards slightly higher V&V, than
do clean poroussandstones.
For dry sandstones,V,/V,s is relatively constant. For wet
sandstonesand mudstones,V,,/V, decreaseswith increasing
V,,. Water-saturatedsandstoneobservationsare consistent
with shear-wavevelocitiesobtainedfrom Gassmann’s equa-
tions. The water-saturatedtrends begin at V,, slightly less
than water velocity and V,, equal to zero, and terminate at
the compressionaland shearwave velocitiesof quartz. The
linear dry trend beginsat zero velocity and terminatesat the
quartz point. Dry rigidity and incompressibilityare about
equal.
Theoretical models based on regular packing arrange-
ments of spheresand on cracked solids yield trends which
are consistentwith observeddry and wet lines.
References
Domenico,S. N., 1976,Effect ofbrine-gas mixtureon velocityin an
unconsolidated sandreservoir:Geophysics,41, 887-894.
Eastwood, R. L., andCastagna,J. P.. 1983.Basisfor interpretation
of V,iV, ratios in complex lithologies:SPWLA 24th An. Log.
Sympos.Trans.
Ebeniro.J., Wilson. C. R., and Dorman, J., 1983.Propagationof
dispersedcompressional and Rayleighwaveson the Tdx& coastal
plain: Geophysics.48.
Gassmann,F., 195I, Elastic waves througha packingof spheres:
Geophysics,16, 673-685.
Grenorv,A. R., 1977.AsDectsof rock uhvsics from laboratoryand
loi datathat are impoitant to seismjcInterpretation,in seismic
stratigraphy-Applicationto hydrocarbonexploration:A.A.P.G.
Memoir26.
Hamilton. E. L.. 1971.Elastic oroDertiesof marine sediments:J.
Geophys.Res., 76, 579-604. ’ ’
Hamilton, E. L., 1979, VP/V.,and Poisson’sratios in marinesedi-
mentsandrocks:J. Acoust. Sec. Am. 66, 1093-1101.
Koerperich. E. A., 1979,‘shear wave velocities determinedfrom
long-and short-spacedboreholeacousticdevices:SPE 8237.
Lash, C. E., 1980,Shearwaves,multiplereflections,and converted
waves found by a deep vertical wave test (vertical seismic
profiling):Geophysics,45, 1373-141I.
Lingle, R., and Jones,‘A. H., 1977,Comparisonof log and labora-
tory measuredP-wave and S-wave velocities:SPWLA 18thAn.
Log.Sympos.Trans.
Pickett,G. R., 1963,Acousticcharacterlogsand their applications
in formationevaluation:J. Petrol. Tech., 15, 650-667.
Toksiiz, M. N.. Cheng, C. H., and Timur, A., 1976,Velocitiesof
seismicwavesin porousrocks:Geophysics,41, 621-645.
Tosaya, C. A., 1982,Acousticalpropertiesof clay-bearingrocks:
PhD.,thesis,StanfordUniv.
Lithologic Anisotropy in the Pennsylvania S13.2
Morrow Formation of Southeastern New
Mexico
M. G. Justin, M. D. McCormack, and S. S. Lee, Arco Oil
and Gas Co.
Surfacerecordedmulticomponentseismicdataare usedto
infer the presenceof shearwave anisotropywithin a subsur-
face stratigraphic unit. The analysis technique employed
requiresdeterminingthe compressional(P) wave, horizontal
shear (SH) wave, and mode-convertedcompressional-to-
vertical shear (SV) wave internal transit times through a
formation using standardprocessedthree-componentCDP
seismiclines. If At,. htsl,. and Atls_,sL.
are two-way P-wave,
SH-wave, and mode-convertedP-to-SV-wave transit times
acrossthe formation. then it can be shown that the travel-
time ratios between these wave types are mathematically
equivalent to the interval velocity ratios VIJVsr,and VP.&
Vs,. Lateral variations in the ratio of the mode-converted
SV-wave velocity to the SH-wave velocity provide an esti-
mate of the degreeof shearwave anisotropypresentwithin
the stratigraphicsequence.Variations in Vp/VsH have been
shownto correlatestronglywith known changesin geologic
cross-sectionand thereforeserveto directly relate observed
lateral changes in the shear wave velocity ratio Vp.svl
V,\,, to lateral variation in lithology.
The formation chosen for the case study is the lower
PennsylvanianMorrow formation, which producesgasfrom
isolated channel sand deposits. A detailed geologiccross-
sectionof the producinghorizon hasbeen mappedalongthe
strike of the multicomponent seismic line. A correlation
observedbetweenchangesin lithologyalong the seismicline
and lateral changesin the observedmode-convertedP-to-SV
waves versusthe SH-wave velocity ratio strongly suggests
the presence of lithologic anisotropy within the Morrow
formation.
Introduction
The seismicliterature definestwo distinct types of anisot-
ropy: (1) transverse isotropy used to refer to anisotropic
media exhibiting hexagonal anisotropic symmetry with a
symmetryaxis normal to the free surface;and (2) anisotropy
or azimuthalanisotropy for all other symmetrysystemsand
for other orientationsof hexagonalsystems.In either case,
anisotropyhasdistinctiveeffectson shearwave propagation
which distinguishthe mediumfrom the more familiar isotro-
pic material. In particular, in an anisotropicmaterial shear
wave splittingoccurswith the resultingtwo orthogonalshear
componentstraveling with different velocities.If the materi-
al is transverselyisotropic,thesecomponentsare simply the
horizontal shear (SH) wave and the vertical shear (Sv)
waves each traveling with its own separate velocity of
propagation. The polarization of the shear waves in the
azimuthalanisotropycaseis lesswell defined,and polariza-
tion diagrams derived from 3-component recordings are
necessaryto define their orientation. Nonetheless,the ve-
locity of the shear wave motion, as recordedon the trans-
verseand radially orientedshearwave geophones,will show
shearwave birefringenceeffectsin an anisotropicmedium.
Thus, the important characteristicin detectingthe presence
of any anisotropic,mediumis that the propagationof shear
wave energy is split into two mutually perpendicularsec-
tions of particle motion. each propagating with its own
velocity.
Causesof anisotropy
Crampin et al. (1984) suggestanisotropy in rocks may
conveniently be divided into three basic classes:inherent
anisotropy,inducedanisotropy,and long-wavelengthanisot-
ropy. A clear understandingof the first two of thesephenom-
ena is particularly important when looking for anisotropic
effects using shallow crustal seismic reflection techniques
suchas thoseemployedby the oil indeusty Briefly, inherent