IPA, 2006 - 16th Annual Convention Proceedings, 1987

Disc Contents

Contents

P A 87-12/11

Search

PROCEEDINGS INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Sixteenth Annual Convention, October 1987

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE RESERVOIRS IN SOUTH SUMATRA

B. Sudewo *
A.R. Suhendan
S. Chacko *

ABSTRACT
Widespread deposition of platform and reefal carbonates
of the Baturaja Limestone occurred during the Miocene
epoch in the South Sumatra Basin. Significant oil and gas
accumulations have been discovered in the porous facies.
However, since porosity within the Baturaja Limestone
has been observed to vary widely between tight platform
facies and highly porous reefal facies, predrill prediction
of porosity is an important exploration objective.

It is well known that porosity and certain physical

properties of carbonates are directly related. Consequently,
prediction of these properties in seismic data could provide
indirect evidence of porosity occurrence, and by corollary,
its absence. In order to do this, there needs to be a good
understanding of the effect of porosity change on those
physical properties of limestones which define the nature of
seismic reflections. This paper documents the measured
values of three of the physical properties of the Baturaja
Limestone from PT Stanvac Indonesia acreage in the South
Sumatra Basin: P-wave velocity, density and electrical
resistivity. These parameters were investigated for their
relationship with porosity. Established modeling equations
like the Time-Average Equation, Raymers Equation, and
Gassmanns Equation were tested against the data base
of measured values, and it was found that the Time-Average
Equation calculates velocities that are in best agreement
with the data.
Prediction of velocity from electrical resistivity using a
combination of Archies Equation and the Time-Average
Equation is shown to be possible; therefore modeling can
be done in areas where electrical logs are the
we log
data available.
A general trend of decreasing porosity with depth was
noted for the Baturaja Limestone samples, indicative of
consolidation changes that are a function of overburden
pressure. Also, comparison of acoustic impedances of
Telisa shales with those of gas-charged limestones indicates
that in contrast with conventional belief, direct hydrocarbon indicators may be seen over limestone reservoirs.

*) PT Stanvac Indonesia

INTRODUCTION
The Baturaja Limestone is a key stratigraphic unit in
South Sumatra, containing commercial quantities of oil
and gas. Porous limestone facies are present usually in
reefal build-up which creates both structural and stratigraphic traps. Although a large number of such build-ups
have been found to have significant porosity, several reefs
have been drilled that show less than 5% porosity. Thus the
prediction of porosity (or the lack of it), in Baturaja Limestone is a highly desirable exploration objective.
In purely physical terms, a change in porosity within a
rock unit translates to a change in its acoustic impedance
( p V). If the unit overlying a limestone for instance is
uniform across its porous and tight facies, the difference in
acoustic impedance in the limestone would cause a change
in reflection coefficient across the interface. To the extent
that this may be resolved in seismic data, a change in
reflection amplitude across the interface could be correlative with a change in limestone porosity. Thus amplitude
anomalies in the reflection from the Baturaja Limestone
may be considered to be related to porosity development.
Figure 1, for example, shows a seismic line across a Baturaja
Limestone reef from Stanvacs acreage in South Sumatra.
A seismic amplitude anomaly is seen at the crest of the reef,
where gas-charged porosity has caused reduced acoustic
impedance and a smaller reflection coefficient.
Seismic modeling of amplitudes is a useful tool to aid in
the interpretation of amplitude anomalies that may be
related to porosity. Such modeling requires a good understanding of porosity impedance relationships, and Over the
years several theoretical and empirical equations have been
developed for this. One of the objectives of the present
paper is to test the applicability and usefulness of these
equations for modeling acoustic impedances of Baturaja
limestones in South Sumatra. This will be done by comparing documented physical properties with theoretical values
as predicted by the equations.
The data base for this study includes a total of 462 Baturaja Limestone samples (containing water, gas, and oil),
taken from 48 wells located primarily in Stanvacs South
Sumatra acreage (Fig. 2). A few of these wells are located
in acreage once held by Stanvac (Sirut, N. Lembak, Betun,

3 64

Abab, S. Jaya) which is currently operated by Pertamina.

Since seismic reflections from the Baturaja limestones arise
from acoustic impedance contrasts with the overlying Telisa
shales, 44 samples of Telisa shales were also included in the
study. Physical properties measured include sonic transit
times, densities, and electrical resistivities. Details on the
method of measurement of these parameters and. the compilation procedure will be given in a later section.
Although there are a number of porosity-velocity equations to choose from, we have chosen to test only three
against our data. These widely used relationships are:
Wyllies Time-Average Equation, Raymers Equation, and
Gassmanns Equation. A. fuller discussion of theseequation
will follow in the section titled Theory.
Another aspect of seismic modeling addressed in this
paper concerns those cases where well log information is
only partially available. This creates a severe contraint on
modeling at the well location. For example, there may be
no sonic or density log available, but only an electrical log,
particularly for many old wells, or there may be a sonic
log, but no density log. In the latter case, the ,Gardner etal.,
(1974) empirical equation relating density to velocity is an
acceptable method for constructing synthetic density logs. In
seismic inversion modeling, interval velocities may also
be recovered from acoustic impedances using Gardners
Equation. It was therefore judicious to compare our limestone samples a@st
pIedictions using this equation.

fil the absewe ,of sonk log data, limestone velocities

may be obtained from electrical log measurements using a
combination of Archies Equation and Wyllies Time-Average
Equation. Density values may then be computed using the
Gardner relationship, and thus seismic modeling of acoustic
impedances becomes possible from a single electrical log.
This is valuable for modeling efforts where information
from older wells is limited to rudimentary electrical logs.
It was necessary to compare the calculated values of these
synthetic logs against measured values where electrical,
sonic and density logs were all available.

Raymer Is Equation
Raymer et ul. (1980) presented an improved sonic
transit-time-to-porosity transform, that was designed to
model a larger range of porosities than could effectively be
done by the Time-Average Equation. This transform is
porosity-range dependent, with different algorithms for
different porosity ranges. For limestone porosities in the
0-37% range, the equation is
V=(l-q5)2 V m a t $ V f

(3)

GassmannIs Equation
Gassmann (1957) showed that when a porous rock
forms a closed system with its pore fluid, and is grossly
isotropic and homogeneous, its elastic parameters are related in the following way:
(4)

M ~ k + 4 / 3p
White! (1965) has given these relationships in the following
form:

where
Mo=Sko

THEORY
Time-AverageEquation
Wyllie and Gardner (1958) presented the following
equation relating porosity to interval transit time from
which velocity is derived (see list of symbols):
A t = A t m a (1 - $)+A tf $

(11

Although initially defined for sandstones, the equation

has been used extensively in the industry for porous rocks
in general, yielding good predicted velocity values. With
minor modification, the equation can be used to model
velocities of hydrocarbon-bearing rocks:
A t = A t m a ( l -$)+$(I

-Sw)Ath+

$ SwAtw(2)

and P-wave velocity =

d+

(9)

These equations may be solved using the Gregory-Pickett

procedure (Hilterman, 1983) where a calibrating velocity and density of a limestone sample (ideally water-filed)
is used to calculate the pore bulk modulus k of the
P
sample. For varying porosity, and for varying pore-fluid
content, new velocities may then be computed, assuming
k is constant in each case.
P
Our data demonstrate that it may not be appropriate
to use a k obtained for a limestone in one area and atP
tempt to use its derived velocity to calculate limestone

365

velocities for a different area. However, in the absence of

any additional information Gassmanns Equation is
useful in predicting velocities of hydrocarbon-filled rocks
where the
of an equivalent (calibrating) water-filled rock
is known, or can be calculated (Hilterman and Liang, 1983).

Gardner3 Equation
Based on statistical analysis of physical properties of
sedimentary rocks, Gardner et al. (1974) reported the following density-velocity relationship:
/=

0.23 V o2

The equation was found to give a good fit with the trend
of the density-velocity cross-plot for the samples they analyzed. Specific lithologies do not plot exactly on the curve
of the Gardners Equation, but were close enough to be
acceptable for seismic modeling. The equation has been
widely used for example to extract velocity information
from acoustic impedances calculated by seismic inversion
procedures.

Gzlculating sonic transit times from resistivity data

The fundamental equation in formation evaluation from
electric logs is the Archies Equation, which for clean, water
bearing sands is:

For a measured Ro, and using statistical estimates for a

and m, the porosity @ may be obtained.
Porosity is related t o the electrical resistivity of a rock.
The Time-Average Equation (Eqn.1) relates sonic transit
times to porosity.
Thus porosity is a common variable to both equations
(1) and (1 l), and these may be combined:
At=Atma(l -

Ja
Rw

)+At,(g3).(12)
RO

For measured values of Ro, A t (or velocity) may be

calculated using Equation (12).

BASIC DATA
A total of 506 data points were collected from 48 wells
in 23 fields where the Baturaja Limzstone is well developed
in South Sumatra. Raw data values of resistivity, bulk
density and travel time were derived from digital data on
original tape records for the more recent wells. For other
wells, data were read from the log prints. Porosity and
water saturation values of samples were calculated using the
LOGCALC program, (Log Analysis Package from Scientific
Software-Intercomp, Inc.), or obtained from Schlumber-

gers GLOBAL Interpretation, where available; otherwise,

these parameters were calculated using Schlumbergers
Indonesia Shaly Sand Equation (Schlumberger, 1973).
Care was taken to include only end-member lithologies in
the data base. However, when average values of parameters
were measured, this condition was never really met in the
strictest sense.
All data points were then tabulated using the LOTUS
program on an IBM PC. The data were sorted by lithology,
depth and pore-fluid content. Columns were then generated in the spreadsheet for values calculated using the TimeAverage, Raymers and Gardners Equations. Sonic and
resistivity-derived porosities were listed based on available
measured or calculated data, using the following parameters:
Bulk Density (Limestone)
Tortuosity Factor
Cementation Factor
Saturation Exponent
Water Resistivity
Travel-Time-LS, Water,Oil,

4 : 2.69

- 2.87 gm/cc
: I
: 1.9 -2.2
n : 1.9 -2.3
Rw : 0.1 - 0.2 ohm-meters
Gas : 49,188,230, and 800
E.C sec./ ft, respectively

a
m

These values were obtained from Raymer et al. (1980)

and Gregory (1977).

PETKOGRAPHY OF LIMESTONE SAMPLES

The great majority of limestone data samples are from
porous reefal facies, but a few samples are also from porous
platform facies. Petrographic analyses from several wells
that penetrated porous limestones suggest that porosity
evolution in the Baturaja Limestone in South Sumatra may
have been controlled by syndepositional and immediate
post-depositional processes. Porosity is mainly secondary,
with most of the primary porosity degraded early by pore
fill cement, sediment infilling or recrystalization.
Porosity generally deteriorates downward through the
reef and, below a certain level, is effectively absent. The
transition between porous and non-porous rock is independent of depositional facies and appears to be wholly
related to diagenetic processes.
In many samples, an early leaching event is apparent,
effecting predominantly aragonitic skeletal particles and
producing significant moldic porosity (Fig. 3). A later
leaching event (apparently the cause of most of the preserved porosity) was probably caused by a change in pore
fluid chemistry and may be related to circulation of acidic,
C02 -rich waters, produced from thermal maturation of
organic matter dispersed throughout the carbonate
sequence.
Porosity degradation, where it occurs, has been caused
by the development of early calcite cements, stylolltization
and compaction.
A plot of limestone porosity with depth (water-filled-

366

samples only) indicates a gross trend of generally decreasing

porosity (Fig. 4). With the assumption that the geologic
ages of all the Baturaja samples are comparable, this observation suggests that overburden pressure probably causes
structural changes within the limestone. For oil exploration
of course, the implication is that better porosities are to be
found in shallower sections.

RESULTOFMEASUREMENTS
Velocity Versus Porosity
Figure 5 is a plot of sonic log velocity values versus
density derived porosity for limestone samples. A total of
110 sample points are represented, with velocities ranging
from 7400 feet/sec. to 19200 feetlsec., with a corresponding porosity range of 39% to 1%. As expected, velocities
show a steady decrease with increasing porosity. Although
it would have been desirable to see a unique velocity for
each porosity, the scatter of velocity values per density
value most probably indicates the presence of non-pure
limestone lithologies. For instance, the samples denoted by
the letter d represent dolomitic limestones and, therefore, display a higher velocity trend.

VeZocity-PorosityEquations
Figure 6 shows a comparison of theoretical velocityporosity functions with the measured water-filled samples
illustrated in Figure 5. Two functions are compared With
the data: the Wyllie Time-Average Equation and the
Raymer Equation. A calcite matrix velocity of 20500
feet per second and a water velocity of 5300 feet per
second were assumed. The plot shows that the TimeAverage Equation may be used to model limestone velocities rather well for the porosity range of the data. Poor
fit is seen for the dolomitized samples and for those samples with highest porosity values. Although this might
indicate a failure of the Time-Average Equation to model
high-porosity limestone velocities properly, another possibility is that sonic log measurements for these high porosity
samples may not be as accurate as those for the lower
porosity samples, or that these high porosity samples typically contain some amount of lower velocity matrix material (eg. clay minerals) in their pores.
Whereas the trend of the Raymer velocities seems to
approximate the trend of the data better, for most porosities
the Raymer velocities are higher than measured values
and higher than the Time-Average velocities.
Another way of assessing the quality of fit of the TimeAverage Equation with the data is illustrated on Figure 7
where calculated transit time values have been plotted
against measured values. Most sample points show good correlation with the line of exact agreement, except at the
higher porosities, for reasons discussed above.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of velocities calculated by

the Gassmann Equation with the data. It should be noted

that the Gassmann velocities were calculated using a single
value of pore bulk modulus kp that best fits the data. Deviation of sample points from the Gassmann curve is in
part due to the inability of a single kp value to represent
all velocities in the data. The other observation that can be
made from this plot is that the Gassmann Equation requires a greater curvature of the velocity-porosity function
than appears to be supported by the data; in this aspect it
is more similar to the Time-Average Equation than the Raymer Equation.

Density versus Velocity

Figure 9 shows a plot of measured density versus
measured velocity for limestone samples. Also shown on
this plot is the theoretical Gardner density-velosity function.
This function computes a higher density for any given
velocity than the data indicates, which is in agreement
with Gardners own finding (Gardner et al., 1974) that the
Gardner density-velocity function yields higher densities
for limestones than for other lithologies. However, for
modeling purposes, the fit is suitable. Note that the dolomites and the lower velocity samples do not show as good
agreement as other samples. This observation was also made
on the velocity-porosity plot for limestones (Fig. 5);
suggesting that poorer velocity measurements of higher
porosities may be a cause for the discrepancies. Another
way of making these comparisons is shown on Figure 10
where density values computed by the Gardners Equation are plotted against measured bulk densities; calculated
values are higher than measured values in the great majority
of cases. A minor effect may be the fact that our density
sample values on this plot did not include the FDC density
log response, which generally corrects density measurements by amounts up to 0.05 gm/cc.
Acoustic Impedance
Figure 11 shows the distribution of water-filled limestone impedance values as a function of depth. Two patterns emerge from this plot:
1. A gross trend of increasing acoustic impedance with
depth, due primarily to the fact that deeper samples
appear to have lower porosities (Fig. 4).

2. The large range of impedances for fixed depths is indicative of the dominant control of porosity on acoustic
impedance.
Figure 12 plots the acoustic impedance of Telisa shales
with depth. Also overprinted on this plot are the acoustic
impedances of gas-filled porous limestones. What is surprising here is the fact that a number of gas samples (circled)
have lower acoustic impedances than the shales overlying
them. This means that zero-to-negative reflection coefficients would exist at the interfaces between them, causing
dim spots or polarity reversals in seismic reflection
data. This is shown for example, on seismic line 679-81

367

(Fig. 13) that crosses the Lembak reef. On this line, a

positive reflection coefficient generates a wavelet with a
leading black half-cycle. Lembak-1 tested 189 of gas in
zones with porosities that exceed 35%, and well data shows
that the gas-charged limestone has lower impedance than
the overlying &ales. Thus seismic interpretation of the
Baturaja reflection on this line shows a polarity reversal
from the tighter platform to the porous gas-bearing reefal
facies.
Figure 14 shows a plot of electrical resistivity versus
porosity for water-filled limestone. Clearly, tighter limestones have higher resistivities than the more porous samples. This figure also plots resistivity values calculated using
Archies Equation (1 l), with

seismic modeling where resistivity data are the only log

data available.
The value of a data compilation and analysis exercise
like that described here is two-fold. Firstly, it enables
seismic modeimg when well data is incomplete or unavailable. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it gives
seismic interpreters a feel for the physical properties of
the reservoir rocks that generate the seismic reflections
they work with. Knowledge of and an understanding of
the behaviour of these properties makes for more valid
judgements regarding reflection strengths and how and
when these may be related to important exploration
parameters such as the development of porosity.

a = 1, m = 2 and % = 0 . 1 2
(these values provide the best fit to core analysis data).
Figure 15 illustrates the result of combining the Archie
and Time-Average equations to calculate transit time values
from resistivity logs; there is reasonable agreement between
calculated and measured values. The comparison fails for
high porosities where the measured values are questionable.
Thus it is possible to estimate limestone velocities where
the only available data are resistivity logs.

CONCLUSIONS
Physical properties of the Baturaja Limestone and Telisa
shale derived from well logs have been compiled and ana lyzed
for trends. The parameters measured were: smic transit
times, bulk density, and electrical resistivity. Porosities of
the limestone range from I-39%; porosity was determined
to have a significant correlation with the velocities of the
samples. An increasing trend of acoustic impedance with
depth is correlated with a decrease of porosity is indicative
of consolidation effects of overburden pressure on limestones, and the implication is that lower risk, porous
limestone exploration targets are likely to occur a t shallower depth. Wyllies Time-Average Equation was found
to be very suitable for modeling limestone velocities, except
when porosities are very high ( > 35%). Two other velocity
porosity equations tested, Raymers Equation and
Gassmans Equation, did not yield as good a fit with the
data. Comparison of acoustic impedances of shales that
overlie gas-bearing limestones suggests that dim spots
(weak reflection coefficients), or even reversals in reflection polarity may be seen in seismic data. This is contrary
to the popular belief that direct hydrocarbon indicators
are not seen over limestone reservoirs.
Using a combination of Archies Equation (which
relates resistivity with porosity) and the Time-Average
Equation (which relates sonic transit time with porosity),
it has been demonstrated that limestone velocities can be
estimated from resistivity logs. This, of course, is useful for

LIST OF SYMBOLS
A t

Interval transit time (microseconds/foot)

A tma Matrix transit time (microseconds/foot)

A tf

Pore-fluid transit time (microseconds/foot)

th

Hydrocarbon fluid transit time (microseconds/foot)

tw

Brine transit time (microseconds/foot)

SW

Water saturation

Porosity

P-wave velocity (ftlsec.)

ma

P-wave matrix velocity (ft/sec.)

vf

P-wave pore fluid velocity (ftlsec.)

Effective bulk modulus (dynes/cm)

kS

Grain matrix bulk modulus (dyneslcm)

kf

Pore-fluid bulk modulus (dynes/cm2)

k0

Dry rock bulk modulus (dyneslcm)

kP
I-1

P
P ma

Pore bulk modulus (dyneslcm)

Shear modulus (dyneslcm)
Bulk density (gmlcc)
Matrix bulk density (gmlcc)

Pf

Pore fluid bulk density (gm/cc)

RO

Electrical resistivity, of 100%water-saturated sample

(ohm-meters)

%J

Electrical resistivity, formation water (ohm-meters)

Cementation exponent

Tortuosity factor

r o

Dry Rock Poissons Ratio (dimensionless)

CY

See equation (5) for definition (dynelcm)

See equation (6) for definition (dyne/cm2)

See equation (7b) for definition.

368

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the shareholders of PT Stanvac Indonesia, viz.
Exxon Corp. and Mobil Oil Corp., for permission to publish
this paper. Special thanks are directed to our colleagues
for their criticisms and contributions to the paper. We
would like to record our thanks to the secretarial and drafting staff at Stanvac for their substantial efforts in helping
to have this project completed in a timely manner.

REFERENCES
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W. and Gregory, A.R. 1974.
Formation Velocity and Density - the Diagenetic Basics for Stratigraphic Traps. Geophysics 39,770-780.
Gassmann, F. 1951. Ueber die Elastizitat a.e. Poroser Medien :Nahlro G.R.S. Zurich, Vierteljahrssch 96, 1-23.

Gregory, A.R. 1977. Aspect of Rock Physics from Laboratory and Log Data that are Important to Seismic Interpretation. In : Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 26.
Hilterman, F.J., and Liang, L.C. 1983 Seismic exploration
modelling course, Houston Texas (Geophysical Development Corporation).
Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E.R. and Gardner, J.S. 1980. An Improved Sonic Transit Tirne-toPorosityTransform.SPWLA
21st Annual Logging Symposium.
Schlumberger Indonesia. 1973. Well Evaluation Conference,
Jakarta, Indonesia.
White, J.E. 1965. Seismic Waves Radiation. Transmission
and Attenuation. Mc Graw Hill, New York, 302p.
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gardner, G.H.F. 1958. An Experimental
Investigation of Factors Affecting Elastic Wave Velocaities in Porous Media. Geophysics 28,459-493.

10

20

K Y S

30
40

0 D A T A POINT

S O U T H SUMATRA

P . T . STANVAC I N D O N E S I A

SO

4
0

37 1
1

10

11

12

1.3

1.4

?5

-A

-D

-E
-F

-G

Moldic porosity is extenyive in this skeletal wackestone/

packestone. Large benthonic> foraminifera (E13, H9) are
abundant. The lepidochyclinid (El 3) is identifiable by the
cement interior molds that have been preserved as skeletal
material was leached. Note the interior molds that have

10

11

12

13

14

15

collapsed into an adjacent pore (H14).Note that whereas

some moldic pores are open (D11) others are tightly
cemented (Kl). Baroque dolomite partially occludes some
pores (G6). 31.5x, plane polarized light).

: Jene-1
Well
: 5900.8 ft.
Depth
Porosity
:
37.8 %
Permeability: 116snd.

FIGURE 3 - Photomicrograph of moldic porosity in a Baturaja Limestone sample

372

05

0.4

il

03
#
*
.-

n 0

!I

(I)

0
L

@l

0.2

0
0

0.1
U

7
depth (thousands of feet)

FIGURE 4

- Porosity Ersus depth for water-filled limestone samples

U:

373

25

24
23
22

21

oil

water

d = dolomitie

20
19

gOS
:

1 0

Od

18
17
16

15
14

13
Od

12
II

10

0
9

5
0.2

measured p o r o s i t y
FIGURE

5 - Limestone velocity versus porosity

0.4

CD

-.

?i
Y

P,

2
CD

E.

0)

v)

-.

-0
0

"b

+'

375

140
130
120

110
100

90
80

U
E

70
5

60
50

40

60

140

FIGURE 7 - Cross-plot of Time-Average transit-times and sonic transit-times for water-Tiled limestone samples

376

25
24
23

= dolomite

22

21

20
19

18
17
16

15
14

13
12

II
10
9

n
nn

0
0

7
6

0.2

0.4

measured porosity

FIGURE 8 - Comparison of Gassmann's velocity lunctlon

sample velocities

for k

= 3.25 dynes/cin2 against water-filled limestone

311

0.45
0.44
0.43

t+

0.42

[I

Ci

0.41

Gardner's equation

0.4

0.29

0.38
U

0.37

11
c1
0

0.36

0.35

,P

rr;t

0.34

U
DID

f-

II

0.33

n
00

0.32

0.3 1
0.3

4.2

3.8

4.4

log v e l o c i t y

FIGURE 9

Bulk density versus velocity showing fit of Gardner's density-wlocity function for water-filled limestone samples

378

ii

E
0

-xn
+r

2.5 -

C
0

U
L

2.4 -

c
U

0
0

2.3 -

2.2 -

2.i -

2.2

2.4
bulk density

2.6
(gm/cC

f IGURE l o - Cross-plot of Gardner densities versus measured bulk densities

L8

379

0.05

0.045

n
n

0.04

0.035

0.03

0
0
U

CI

0.025

CI

Ql CI

Bi
0.02

n
n
0.015

0.01

de pt h (thousands of f e e t )

FIGURE 1 1 - Acoustic impedance as a function of depth

Tor water-filled limestone samples

380

LIMESTONE

GAS

SHALE

0.05
X

0
0

0.045

0.0 4
0
X

- 0.035

0
0

X
E
.-

0.025

0
0

0
X
X
X

0.02

OX

0
X

8xx
0-015
X

0.0I

d e p t h (thousands o f feet)

FIGURE 12- Acoustic impedance versus depth for Telisa shale samples and gas-charged limestone samples

POP^

a030

I
no40

eoso
Po60

I
i

NORTH LEMBAK- I

a070

POOO

nosq

. I .

YIOO

a110

PIPO

pi30

L-676 i P P O $ 8 / P U $ 9

(OFFSET f KILOMETER)

L-677 S P P O e O

S P 2066

LINE 679-81

a,
c

382

60
I

50

40

Cl
O t
U

30
0

'0 n

20

U t f n

'n

10

0
0.2

0.4

porosity

FIGURE 14 - Electrical resistivity versus velocity for water-filled limestone samples, with overplot of Archie's
Equation

383

140
130

120
110

100

/
90

80
70

60

50
40

FIGURE 15 - Cross-plot of theoretical transit time values versus measured sonic transit times for water-filled
limestone samples