Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Brian Russell
Hampson-Russell, A CGGVeritas Company
Introduction
In this talk, I want to discuss how the work of Biot and
Gassmann has shaped both Hampson-Russells software
and my own scientific development over the last 27 years.
I will start with a discussion of Gassmanns work, and how it
influenced version 1.0 of AVO in 1985 (at Veritas!).
I will then discuss the importance of Biots work, which I first
appreciated while working to generalize the LMR equation.
This became even clearer while working with Dave Gray to
generalize his two three-term AVO expressions.
Gassmanns contribution to the effects of porosity then lead
me to develop a new rock physics template.
Finally, I will look to the future with a discussion of
Gassmann in anisotropic rocks.
2
Poroelasticity
Biot (1941) and Gassmann (1951) were the founders of
poroelasticity theory, which they developed in quite different
ways by comparing the compressibility of a dry and saturated
volume of rock, as shown below:
Saturated
Rock
(pores full)
Dry rock
frame, or
skeleton
(pores empty)
1
1 dV
C
, where : V volume, P pressure.
K
V dP
In the above equation, there are two fundamental types of
pressure: confining pressure, PC, and pore pressure, PP.
Also, there are three different volumes to consider: the
volume of the bulk rock, the mineral and the pore space.
DPc
Mineral
DPc
DPc
A. Mineral case
DPc
Dry Pore
DPc
DPc
DPc
B. Dry case
DPp
DPc
DPc
C. Saturated case
K dry
K min
, where :
K sat
~ , where :
K m K
VP
K sat ( 4 / 3)
sat
VS
,
sat
K sat
If we let:
K dry
1 K
min
K dry
1 K dry
2
K fluid K min K min
K dry
K min
and
,
M K fluid K min
dry
K dry 4
VP
2
3
VS dry
2
Note that:
2
dry
SI = VS
2
f AI 2 dry
SI 2
13
Vp
Den
Porosity
Cretaceous
Shale
85m
Gas sand
97m
Oil sand
95m
Wet sand
Limestone
Courtesy, Ken Hedlin and Husky Oil
14
f vs s with c = 1.333
rho*f
vs
rho*sfor
forccc===1.333
2
rho*f
vs
rho*s
rho*f
vs
rho*s
for
2.333
7.00
5.00
8.00
rho*ss
rho*
rho*s
4.50
6.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
3.50
3.00
4.00
5.00
2.50
3.00
4.00
2.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
rho*f
rho*f
rho*f
3.00
3.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
8.00
Shale
Gas
Shale
Oil
Wet
Shale Gas
Gas Oil
Oil Wet
Wet
15
Dp1
Dp2
Dp2
RPP ( ) a
b
c
,
p1
p2
p2
where : a, b, and c are functions of and VP2 / VS2 ,
and p1 , p2 , and p3 are physical parameters such as
VP , VS , , P impedance, S impedance, etc.
For example, the original Aki-Richards equation uses
VP, VS and and the Fatti equation uses P-impedance,
S-impedance and .
16
1 2
1 1 2 D
2 D
sec
2
sin
sec
2
2 4
1
1 2 DK
1
RPP ( ) 2 sec
2
K sat
4 3 sat
1 2
1 1 2 D
2 D
sec
2
sin
sec
3
2 4
RPP ( ) a
where:
Df
D
D
b
c
f
2
1 dry
2
a 2 sec
4 4 sat
2
dry
2
2
b 2 sec 2 sin 2
4 sat
sat
2
2
1 1 2
V
V
2
2
P
P
c sec , sat 2 and dry 2
2 4
VS sat
VS dry
18
Some observations
The following comments can be made about the general
formulation:
If we substitute dry2 = 2 into the previous formulation, we
obtain the Gray et al. (1999) expression for , , .
If we substitute dry2 = 4/3 into the previous formulation, we
obtain the Gray et al. (1999) expression for K, , .
Again, the optimum value should be determined from well
logs and will probably be in the order of 2.333 for clean
sands or nearer 2.8 for deeper sediments, as found by
Dillon et al. (TLE, 2003) for measurements in Brazil.
The next few slides show a case study of this method.
19
20
Df/f vs D/ results
Df/f
Here is a comparison
of the fluid result (top)
with the shear
modulus result
(bottom).
D/
Note the change in
polarity at the gas
sand when comparing
the two results.
21
K dry
Km
, where :
K /Km = 0.162
RMSE = 0.039
c = 34.3%
RMSE = 0.058
This figure (from Russell and Smith, 2007) shows the fit of pore space
stiffness (left) and critical porosity (right) to a set of measured values at
constant pressure and differing porosity (Han, 1986). The pore space
stiffness method gives a smaller error than the critical porosity method.
Km
Constant K
curve
Knew
Kcal
new
cal
24
1
K dry _ new
1 new 1
1
25
/ c
1 / c
4
K dry
HM
3
K HM (4 / 3) HM K m (4 / 3) HM
1
dry
/ c
1 / c
4
HM 9 K HM 8 HM
HM , where z
3
6 K HM 2 HM
HM z m z
1
3
1
3
n (1 c )
4 4n m 3n (1 c )
K HM
P
,
P ,
HM
2
2
5(2 n m ) 2 (1 n m )
18 (1 n m )
2
m
2
2
m
2
per grain, n m mineral Poisson' s ratio, and c high porosity end - member.
27
dry _ new
new 1
1
3.0
Vp/Vs ratio
Shales
Cemented sands
Brine sands
1.5
Now we will
compare our
templates to
real data. This
plot shows well
log data from a
gas sand in the
Colony area of
Alberta.
4500
Gas sands
P-impedance (m/s*g/cc)
11000
Shales
Brine sands
Vp/Vs ratio
Cemented sands
1.8
The results of a
simultaneous
pre-stack
inversion from
the same area.
Note that the
range of values
is less extreme
than on the log
data due to the
bandlimited
nature of the
seismic data.
2.9
Gas sands
5200
6800
P-impedance (m/s*g/cc)
31
20% Porosity
Log data
32
20% Porosity
Log data
33
s 11 c11
s c
22 12
s 33 c13
s 23 0
s 13 0
s 12 0
c12
c22
c23
0
0
0
c13 0
c23 0
c33 0
0 c44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c55
0
0 11
0 22
0 33
,
0 23
0 13
c66 12
Anisotropic Biot-Gassmann
The anisotropic Gassmann equations can be written in the
following Biot-type form (Gurevich, 2003):
cijsat cijdry i j M
3
where : m 1
c
n 1
dry
mn
3K min
, m 1,2,3, m 0, m 4,5,6,
K min
1 3 3 dry
*
M
, K cij
*
1 ( K / K min ) 1 ( K min / K fluid )
9 i 1 j 1
Conclusions
In this talk, I outlined my long relationship with Biot and
Gassmann.
It started in 1985, with version 1.0 of our AVO program.
I then used their theories, along with ideas from Ken Hedlin
and Fred Hilterman, to generalize the LMR process.
With Dave Gray, we used their theories to generalize two
separate linearized AVO expressions.
Most recently, I used the pore space compressibility concept
to build a new rock physics template.
This last work validates the assumptions that we made in
version 1.0 of AVO about computing porosity change.
My current interest involves using Biot and Gassmann in the
anisotropic world.
37
References
Biot, M. A., 1941, General theory of three-dimensional consolidation,
Journal of Applied Physics, 12, 155-164.
Dillon, L., Schwedersky, G., Vasquez, G., Velloso, R. and Nunes, C., 2003,
A multiscale DHI elastic attributes evaluation: The Leading Edge, 22, no.
10, 1024-1029.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Uber die Elastizitat poroser Medien: Vierteljahrsschrift
der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 96, 1-23.
Goodway, W., Chen, T., and Downton, J., 1997, Improved AVO fluid
detection and lithology discrimination using Lame petrophysical parameters:
67th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 183
186.
Gray, F., Chen, T. and Goodway, W., 1999, Bridging the gap: Using AVO to
detect changes in fundamental elastic constants, 69th Ann. Int. Mtg: SEG,
852-855.
38
References
Han, D., 1986, Effects of porosity and clay content on acoustic properties
of sandstones and unconsolidated sediments: Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford.
Hedlin, K., 2000, Pore space modulus and extraction using AVO: 70th
Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 170-173.
Mavko, G., and T. Mukerji, 1995, Seismic pore space compressibility and
Gassmann's relation: Geophysics, 60, 1743-1749.
Murphy, W., Reischer, A., and Hsu, K., 1993, Modulus Decomposition of
Compressional and Shear Velocities in Sand Bodies: Geophysics, 58,
227-239.
Nur, A., 1992, Critical porosity and the seismic velocities in rocks: EOS,
Transactions American Geophysical Union, 73, 43-66.
References
Russell, B., Hedlin, K., Hilterman, F. and Lines, L., 2003, Fluid-property
discrimination with AVO: A Biot-Gassmann perspective: Geophysics,
68, 29-39.
Russell, B. H. and Smith, T., 2007, The relationship between dry rock
bulk modulus and porosity An empirical study: CREWES Report,
Volume 19.
Russell, B.H. and Lines, L., 2011, A Gassmann consistent rock physics
template: CREWES Report, Volume 23.
Russell, B.H., Gray, D., and Hampson, D.P., 2011, Linearized AVO and
poroelasticity, Geophysics, 76, no. 3, C19-C29.
40