Main Menu

Picking the sweet spot using rock physics

Ken Titchkosky*, RPS Energy, Richard Thompson, Cyries Energy
Summary This paper presents the case histories of drilling three successful Cretaceous Notikewin gas wells in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin using seismic and rock physics. Ordinary seismic data is used to obtain two key sections of rock properties: Incompressibility of the rock (Lambda) scaled by the density (Rho). This parameter is sensitive to pore fluid type. Rigidity of the rock (Mu) scaled by the density (Rho). This parameter is sensitive to the rock matrix or lithology. This presentation goes through the actual steps of interpreting the seismic, the rock property sections, as well as the seismic crossplots to show how the following was accomplished: Reduced the risk in drilling well #1 on Line A Prevented a shale plug from being drilled for well #2 on Line B Confirmed that a bright spot on Line C was not a cemented tight streak for well #3 Well #1 and #2 both produced at 2 mmcf/day while well #3 has no production data, as it was not near a pipeline. Well #3 does have three good reservoir gas zones as seen on the logs and the rock physics sections. Well #3 was tested and had an absolute open flow of 3.7 mmcf/day. This practical approach using real data examples helps the geophysicist and geologist understand how this AVO/LMR technology can be used to pick the sweet spot. Introduction AVO/LMR processing has been described by a number of authors including Goodway et al (1997). It complements the basic seismic stack by providing various rock physics sections that can be very useful in the interpretation phase. In our production AVO/LMR processing the use of super gathers or summed ostrander gathers is important to reduce noise and improve signal. AVO/LMR processing generates the P seismic and the S or Shear seismic stacks. From these two stacks the other rock physics sections are obtained including the fluid stack, Impedance P, Impedance S, Lambda, Mu, ratio of Lambda over Mu and the difference of Lambda minus Mu. Trim statics are also very important in this production AVO/LMR processing. For 3D seismic the cubes of these rock properties are calculated from ordinary 3D seismic data. Example 1: Reducing the risk In Figure 1 we show a portion of the seismic line A. The vertical scale is time going from 200 ms to 700 ms. It is this 500 ms window that AVO/LMR processing is focused on. The horizontal scale is shotpoints. Our zone of interest is the Notikewin just above 400 ms. There is an obvious high amplitude or bright spot area that extends over 1100 meters or about ten football fields in length. Can the drilling risk be reduced using rock physics? For a gas charged sand reservoir there should be consistently low incompressibility values (that is, low force to compress the porous rock with gas in the pores). Also for a clean sand matrix the rigidity should have high values. A shaly sand would have lower rigidity values and be a poor well. The ratio of incompressibility of the rock over rigidity of the rock is the rock physics section shown in Figure 2. This rock physics section is used in determining the location of the Notikewin porous gas sand reservoir. The vertical scale is time ranging from 300 to 500 ms and the ratio values are color coded according to the color bar seen on the right side of Figure 2, ranging from 1.0 black to 5.0 white. A consistently low ratio value of about 1.0 (black color in Figure 2) is seen to extend about 200 meters at shotpoint b indicated by the orange vertical line. The areal extent of possible drilling locations has been reduced from ten football fields to about two football fields. The sweet spot of the extended bright spot has been determined. Before well #1 is drilled a crossplot of the rock properties calculated for this Line A is created. Figure 3 shows the crossplot of the incompressibility of the rock versus the rigidity of the rock. This crossplot is obtained by drawing a polygon or rectangle over the interpreted reservoir (black color in Figure 2). For all points in this rectangle the variable Lambda is plotted on the x-axis and the variable Mu or rigidity is plotted on the y-axis. This results in the cloud of black dots seen on the left most side of Figure 3. Also points in a rectangle from a non-prospective or regional location are plotted and they appear as the right most cloud of black dots in Figure 3. The porous gas sand or sweet spot at shotpoint b is well differentiated from the regional sand. The gas sand has an average Lambda value of 7 and a much higher value of 14 (no gas) for tight regional sand. The rigidity values are about the same for both the gas sand and the regional sand. This follows the geologic model, as the Notikewin formation is a blanket sand in this area with pockets of anomalous zones of gas sands, shale plugs or cemented tight streaks. In Figure 3 the blue and pink

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

264
Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

264

Main Menu

Picking the sweet spot using rock physics

colors are a histogram indicating the number of times this pair of rock property values occurs in the 500 ms window that AVO/LMR was done on. Pink means that pair occurred many times while blue means that pair occurred less often. The crossplot is used to confirm the drilling location and to convince management that there is a good chance of a successful economic well. Well #1 was drilled at shotpoint b and it encountered a porous gas sand reservoir that produced at 2 mmcf/day with 4 meters of pay and a porosity of 28%. In Figure 2 the rock physics ratio section shows that the Notikewin anomaly (black color low ratio) is structurally higher and this was another reason the interpreter chose to drill at shotpoint b. Once a successful template has been established it can be used by management to evaluate the risk/potential of all proposed well locations in this area. To start off an AVO/LMR project it is ideal to have a seismic line over a good well and a dry hole but it is not necessary. Templating on the fly as experience is gained in an area can also be an effective approach. Example 2: Discriminating a shale plug The rigidity of the rock section for line B has been calculated from the seismic data and displayed in Figure 4. This seismic line B is about 1 mile north of line A. The vertical scale is time going from 300 to 500 ms and the top of the Notikewin formation is at about 400 ms. The rigidity of the rock is color coded according to the color bar seen on the right side of Figure 4. The originally proposed well location is indicated by the orange vertical line in the center of Figure 4. This location has a low rigidity of about 2.0 (black area in center of Figure 4). This location may not be the sweet spot but a shale plug. Shale plugs are common in this region and have resulted in a number of dry hole disappointments. Regular seismic has the same anomaly for a shale plug and a gas zone as both have a low P-wave velocity. A much higher rigidity value of about 5.0 (blue color) is seen at the location indicated by the dashed orange vertical line further to the left in Figure 4. In the bottom half of Figure 5 the Lambda section for line B is shown. A clean porous gas sand has low lambda values of about 7 (see Figure 5) and high rigidity values of 5 (blue color in Figure 4). This gives a low ratio value of 7/5=1.4 at the better location. At the originally proposed location indicated by the solid orange line, Lambda is 12 (see Figure 5) and Mu is 2 so the ratio values are about 12/2=6. If this original proposed location were drilled it would result in a dry hole or a very pool well. Before well #2 is drilled the crossplot of the rock properties calculated from seismic line B is created. This crossplot of the gas reservoir and the shale plug is shown in the upper half Figure 5. A black rectangle is drawn over the sweet spot or porous gas sand and produces the left most cloud of black points. A white rectangle is drawn over the interpreted shale plug and produces the lowest cloud of black points. A mauve rectangle seen at the bottom of Figure 5 is drawn over regional tight sand and produces the right most cloud of black points. This regional tight sand data clearly differentiates itself with very high Lambda values of about 20 (as seen on the x axis of the crossplot) and slightly higher rigidity values of about 6 (see y axis in Figure 5). The gas sand in the crossplot also differentiates itself from the shale plug with lower Lambda values and higher rigidity values. In some geologic settings the shale plug could have the same low Lambda value as the gas sand and then it would only be differentiated by the clean gas sand having higher rigidity values in the crossplot. Well #2 was drilled at the interpreted sweet spot and resulted in a gas well that produced at 2 mmcf/day. The original location or interpreted shale plug has not been drilled. Example 3: Discriminating a cemented tight streak The seismic data for Line C was shot in 1986 and production AVO/LMR processing was used to produce useful rock physics sections. A serious problem in this area is cemented tight streaks that show up as a bright spot on the ordinary seismic stack. A cemented tight streak will have a high Lambda value. If the bright spot is due to porous gas sand then it will have low Lambda value. Line C had a bright spot and AVO/LMR processing was requested by the interpreter to see if it was a cemented tight streak or a porous gas sand. The incompressibility of the rock or lambda was calculated from this 1986 data and is shown in Figure 6. The vertical scale is time going from 350 to 500 ms and the color is Lambda or incompressibility of the rock. The proposed drilling location of well #3 indicated by the orange vertical line is a bright spot on the ordinary seismic stack. The seismic stack and the rock physics section show a large fault at the proposed drilling location. There is a consistent zone of very low lambda values of about 3.0 (black color) at the drilling location. This is certainly not a cemented tight streak but an excellent drilling location. A tight steak would have much higher lambda values. The preferred drilling location from the geologic model is the upthrown side of the fault. Before this sweet spot is drilled a crossplot of the rock properties calculated from line C is produced. This crossplot and the Lambda section are shown in Figure 7. A white polygon at the bottom of Figure 7 is drawn over the interpreted sweet spot and produces the cloud of black points seen on the left side of the crossplot. A reverse crossplot that patches the seismic section can be very useful for the interpretation effort. In Figure 8 we show such a reverse crossplot. The cloud of black points that come from the high side of the fault are surrounded by a yellow polygon and the rock physics section is colored yellow wherever it has this value of Lambda and rigidity. In the lower part of Figure 8 there is yellow on both sides of the fault. This indicates that both

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

265
Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

265

Main Menu

Picking the sweet spot using rock physics

sides of the fault are sweet spots. The high side of the fault was drilled and resulted in an excellent gas well with an absolute open flow test of 3.7 mmcf/day. In the production phase the drilling program should be designed to extract the gas in the down thrown side of the fault which might be a separate reservoir. Conclusions Production AVO/LMR sweet spot processing of ordinary seismic data of various vintages can produce useful rock physics sections that can assist the geophysicist and geologist in the interpretation phase. Using the rock physics sections and crossplots of the rock properties the interpreters were able to discriminate between Notikewin gas sand, a shale plug and a cemented tight streak in this area. It may be possible to apply this production AVO/LMR sweet spot processing to help direct the vertical or horizontal drilling in various other exploration plays including oil sands play, the Bakken play, the Montney play and the Barnett shale gas play of Texas. (Goodway et al 2006). Some of the characteristics of this production AVO/LMR processing are listed below: Ordinary Seismic data (2D and 3D) may be used to obtain the rock physics sections. All vintages of seismic data may be analysed It is production processing with tight deadlines and templating on the fly can be done as experience is gained in an area AVO compliant gathers are not necessary Super stacks or ostrander gathers and trim statics for improved signal and reducing noise are very important The rock physics sections complement the regular migrated stacks The cost of AVO/LMR processing is about the same as ordinary seismic processing to migrated stack The output shear wave stack is at P-wave time The processing must focus upon a restricted time window of seismic data The shear velocity constraint model can be obtained from Schlumberger tables if a dipole shear log is not available in the area Acknowledgements I would like to thank Richard Thompson my co-author and the interpreter for this project who had the courage and foresight to use this technique in the hustle and bustle of his exploration activities. The authors would like to thank Henry Leong, who did the basic processing to migrated stack and provided the relative amplitude gathers for sweet spot processing, Jan Dewar who converted the jpeg images to a power point presentation, and Jon Downton who helped me with my very first AVO/LMR processing project. The authors would also like to thank Devon Energy, Blue Grouse, and Pulse Data for permission to show this data and Corelab Reservoir Technologies, now Paradigm, for their cooperation and permission in showing this processing. The authors would also like to thank RPS Energy for their support in presenting this paper.

Figure 1: Migrated stack of Line A

Figure 2: Ratio of incompressibility over rigidity for Line A

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

266
Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

266

Main Menu

Picking the sweet spot using rock physics

Figure 3: Crossplot of incompressibility of the rock versus rigidity of the rock for line A

Figure 4: Rigidity of the rock section for line B

Figure 5: Crossplot and incompressibility of the rock section for line B

Figure 6: Incompressibility of the rock section for line C

Figure 7: Crossplot and incompressibility of the rock section for line C

Figure 8: Reverse crossplot to patch the seismic sections

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

267
Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

267

Main Menu

EDITED REFERENCES Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2008 SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web. REFERENCES Goodway, W., T. Chen, and J. Downton, 1997, Improved AVO fluid detection and lithology discrimination using Lame petrophysical parameters lambda-rho, mu-rho, and lambda/mu fluid stack, from P- and S-inversions: 67th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 183186. Goodway, W., J. Varsek, and C. Abaco, 2006, Practical applications of P-wave AVO for unconventional gas resource plays Part 1: CSEG Recorder, 31, 9095.

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

268
Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

268