Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CARBONATE RESERVOIR
EVALUATION USING
ROCK PHYSICS
Presented by - Pranshu Ratre
Contents
Introduction
Method
Case Study- Upper San Andreas Reservoir, Permian
Conclusions
Reference
Introduction
Carbonate Reservoir heterogeneity is due to:
Complicated mineral composition
Pore structure and rock texture variations (due to diagenesis)
For a given mineral composition and fluid type, the
Introduction
A robust and practical rock physics model considering the
responses
Method
To evaluate the reservoir, a rock physics model (Sun
Method
Vp, Vs and are the compressional velocity, shear
, f, Fk : Frame flexibility
Factors (Sun model)
Ks, Kf : matrix and fluid bulk
Moduli respectively
: porosity
Method
Carbonate reservoirs often have composite minerals such
Method
Now in order to calculate the bulk , volume fraction of
Method
Once the percentage of each mineral is determined the
10
Method
2-layer forward AVO modelling is also performed to
11
Method
From angle stack and poststack data the elastic
12
a. Tectonic units of
Permian Basin and the
location of the study
area. b. Base map of 3D
survey showing the well
locations, area of high
volume production and
transition zone
from the platform to
basin.
(Modified from Saller et
al., 2001.)
13
Geology
Core studies and analogy outcrop analyses show that the
14
15
Fig: Cross-plot of P-wave against density porosity and color indicator is frame flexibility factor (),
Well #1, which represents big scattering at the given porosity. The velocity variation at a given
porosity can be represented by frame flexibility factor .
16
Fig: Cross-plot of P-wave against density porosity and color indicator is frame flexibility factor () as
well, cored interval of Well #2. The core photos show rock texture and pore type variation for each
specific sample, which are used to interpret the complex of porosity and P-wave velocity relationship.
17
18
19
20
a. Rpp against incident angle for three kinds of pore types. b. Rps against incident angle for
three kinds of pore types, Well #3. It delineates that Rpp and Rps of each kind of pore type
show different critical angle and Rpp's and Rps's differences between each kind of pore type
increases with incident angle increasing.
21
converted S-waves.
Critical angle of each Rpp curves increases from PTIII to
PTI.
Similarly for Rps the difference between the pore type
increases as the reflectino angle increases
This analysis implies that the far offset seismic data is
better to discriminate the pore type variations in carbonate
reservoirs than the near offset seismic data.
22
Fig: calculation by using rock physics model against prediction from EI, AI and Lambda,
representing a good agreement between the calculation in two different methods.
23
24
Conclusions
Variations in pore type, rock texture and mineral
composition are the major causes for poor porosityvelocity and porosity-permeability relationships.
The case study on San Andreas Carbonate reservoir
25
Conclusions
The frame flexibility factor can be used to characterize
26
Reference
Qifeng Dou, Yuefeng Sun, Charlotte Sullivan, RockPhysics-based carbonate pore type characterization and
reservoir permeability heterogeneity evaluation, Upper San
Andreas, Permian Basin, west Texas (2011); Journal of
Geophysics
27
THANK YOU!
QUESTION?