Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Hampson-Russell
July 18, 2014
Brian Russell
Introduction
This document discusses the rock physics templates
(RPT), and how we have implemented the RPT
approach in the Hampson-Russell software release
HRS-9.
The method is based on theory proposed by Dvorkin
and Nur (1996) and degaard and Avseth (2003).
We will show the equations and the concepts behind
the theory using graphical methods.
We will also use log and inverted seismic data from the
Colony sand of central Alberta to illustrate these
methods.
2
The rock physics template (RPT)
5
Hertz-Mindlin contact theory
Hertz-Mindlin contact theory requires a knowledge of:
The mineral bulk and shear moduli of the dry rock skeleton.
The pressure acting on the rock.
The porosity of the rock.
And the number of contacts per grain, as we assume the rock
consists of spherical grains.
6
Hertz-Mindlin contact theory
Using the normal compression
of two identical grains shown on
the left of this figure, Hertz
computed the effective bulk
modulus.
7
Hertz-Mindlin contact theory
The final terms needed in Hertz-Mindlin (HM) contact theory
are the shear modulus and Poissons ratio of the mineral
grains, the pressure and the critical porosity, giving:
1 1
n 2 (1 c ) 2 m2 3
4 4 m 3n 2 (1 c ) 2 m2 3
K HM = P , HM = P ,
18 (1 m ) 5( 2 m ) 2 (1 m )
2 2 2 2
where : P = confining pressure, K m = mineral bulk modulus,
m = mineral shear modulus, m = mineral Poisson' s ratio
c = high porosity end - member, and n = contacts per grain.
We get the mineral bulk modulus by noting:
3K m 2 m 2 (1 + m )
m = Km = m
2(3K m + m ) 3 6 m
8
The lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound
10
The Modified Gregory-Pickett Method for Moduli
The Gregory-Pickett method is a simpler method for the moduli,
proposed by Hilterman (1983).
In this method, the dry rock bulk modulus is estimated at a known
porosity by assuming a dry rock Poissons ratio.
Next, the pore space stiffness is computed from:
1 1
= +
Kdry Km K
Where Kdry = dry rock bulk modulus, = porosity, Km = mineral bulk
modulus and K = pore space stiffness.
From the pore space stiffness, the dry rock bulk modulus can be
estimated for a range of porosities, and gives the correct value in the
mineral case.
This method was modified by Russell (2013) to perform the same
computation for the shear modulus.
11
The Modified Gregory-Pickett Method for Moduli
13
The Gassmann equation
By considering the pressure effects on samples of a dry
and saturated rock, Mavko and Mukerji (1995) succinctly
show how the Gassmann equation can be derived.
The compressibility of the rock, C, which is the inverse of
the bulk modulus K, is the change of the volume of the rock
with respect to pressure, divided by the volume:
1 1 dV
C = = , where : V = volume, P = pressure.
K V dP
16
The Gassmann equation
Combining these equations gives the Gassmann equation,
a function of porosity () and water saturation (SW):
K sat K dry Kf
= + = dry ( ) + fluid ( , SW )
K m K sat K m K dry ( K m K f )
The fluid bulk modulus is computed with the Ruess average
(normal case) or the Voigt average (patchy saturation):
1
Sw 1 Sw
Reuss : K f = + , Voigt : K f = S w K w + (1 S w ) K hc
Kw K hc
The five bounds for the bulk modulus (left) and shear modulus (right) from
the mineral value ( = 0) to the calibrated value (c = 0.4). The heavy lines
are the Hashin-Shtrikman upper bound, or HS+, in red, and Hashin-
Shtrikman lower bound, or HS-, in blue, and the dashed lines show the
Voigt, Hill and Reuss bounds. 21
Computing the density and velocities
Once we have the moduli computed, we compute the
velocities.
This also requires that we compute the density at each
porosity and saturation, using the formula:
sat ( , S w ) = m (1 ) + w S w + hc (1 S w )
23
The degaard/Avseth RPT
25
The rock physics template (RPT)
P-impedance
VP/VS
Depth (m/s*g/cc)
Ratio Shales
(m)
600
Top Gas Wet sands
Cemented sands
Base Gas Gas sands
700
I will illustrate its applications using the values between 600 and 700 m for a
gas sand from Alberta, as shown on the right above. Note the agreement
with the previous template for the various lithological units.
26
The rock physics template (RPT)
Here, we have computed and drawn the rock physics template using the
default parameters. The fit is reasonably good but certainly not perfect.
27
Adjusting the fit
28
The rock physics template (RPT)
By adjusting the dry bulk and shear moduli, we are able to adjust the
template so that the gas sand is predicted very well. However, the wet and
cemented sands are not predicted very closely. 29
The rock physics template (RPT)
On this plot, we have used the cemented sand model and also adjusted the
temperature and pressure of the reservoir to get a much better fit. 30
The shale line
If you prefer mu-rho versus lambda-rho (i.e. vs. ) as your elastic constants
for cross-plotting (or some other combination), the transform simply involves
right clicking on the names on each axis. The result is shown here for LMR.
32
Adjusting the fit
33
Application to real seismic data
A pre-stack inversion was done over the seismic volume associated with
the gas well, with VP/VS ratio shown in color and the traces showing
acoustic impedance. 34
Application to real seismic data
Shale
Gas Sand
Cemented
Sand
The picked horizons and the crossplot zones corresponding to shale, gas
sand and cemented sand are shown here.
35
Application to real seismic data
2.9
Shale
Cemented
Sand
VP/VS Ratio
Gas Sand
1.7
1200 6400
P-Impedance (m/s*g/cc)
Here is the VP/VS Ratio versus P-impedance crossplot of the three
picked zones from the previous cross-section. 36
Application to real seismic data
3.5
VP/VS Ratio
1.5
1200 P-Impedance (m/s*g/cc) 6400
The superposition of the rock physics template built from the well logs on
top of the seismically derived values, showing a reasonable match.
37
Future enhancements
39
References
40