1

CARBONATE RESERVOIR
EVALUATION USING
ROCK PHYSICS
Presented by - Pranshu Ratre

Contents
Introduction
Method
Case Study- Upper San Andreas Reservoir, Permian

Basin, west Texas

Geology
Data Analysis and Interpretation
AVO and Impedance Inversion Modelling

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

complexity of pore type such as moldic, vuggy,

interparticle, cracks and others, affects reservoir
permeability heterogeneity and seismic velocity variation
more strongly than porosity.

Introduction
A robust and practical rock physics model considering the

pore type variations was developed to understand the

complicated relationship between acoustic properties and
reservoir parameters
This can also help in linking the rock properties with AVO

responses

Method
To evaluate the reservoir, a rock physics model (Sun

model) based on the extended Biots theory of

poroelasticity was used.
In this model, a frame flexibility factor is introduced to

characterize carbonate reservoir pore structure.

The frame flexibility factor quantifies the effect of pore

structure changes on seismic wave velocity and

permeability heterogeneity in carbonate reservoirs.

Method
Vp, Vs and are the compressional velocity, shear

velocity and bulk density respectively

K and are the bulk and shear modulus
Then frame flexibility factor is given by:
where,

, f, Fk : Frame flexibility
Factors (Sun model)
Ks, Kf : matrix and fluid bulk
Moduli respectively

: porosity

Method
Carbonate reservoirs often have composite minerals such

as calcite and dolomite as well as anhydrite or quartz

dependent on depositional environment
Bulk modulus and bulk density calculations should

consider the mineral components before computing the

bulk frame flexibility factor.
Mud filtrate invasion around the well bore is usually more

pervasive in carbonates than clastic rocks and the zones

measured by sonic and bulk density well log are almost
invasion zones with 100% water saturation

Method
Now in order to calculate the bulk , volume fraction of

mineral components and porosity must be determined.

This is done by solving :
where,
: Bulk density from logs
Pe: photoelectric factor from logs

f, d, d : Bulk density of fluid, dolomite

and andhydrite respectively
Pef, Ped, Pea: Photoelctric factor of
fluid
dolomite and anhydrite

Method
Once the percentage of each mineral is determined the

Voigt-Reuss-Hill mixing model is further used to calculate

the bulk modulus of matrix Ks :
where
fi and Mi are the volume fraction
and modulus of the mineral component resp.

10

Method
2-layer forward AVO modelling is also performed to

evaluate the feasibility of applying pre-stack seismic data

to estimate amplitude changes with an offset caused by
pore type variation so that seismic inversion using both
prestack and poststack data could be later carried out to
obtain reservoir porosity and pore stricture parameter,
gamma, in the inter well regions

11

Method
From angle stack and poststack data the elastic

impedance, AI and lambda can be calculated:

where,
EI: Elastic Impedance
AI: Acoustic Impedance
Lambda: Lames constant
K and : Bulk and Shear moduli

12

Case Study- Upper San Andreas Reservoir,

Permian Basin, west Texas

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

San Andreas formation is an overall upward shallowing

and basinal prograding unit, deposited on carbonate
ramp.
Homogeneous dolomudstone or the uniform muddominant dolowackstone, dolograinstone are the main
rock types present
Dolograinstone is oil stained and primary pore types are
good visible biomoldic, vuggy and intraparticle

14

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data set includes:
60 full diameter core porosity and permeability measurements
Core images
Conventional well log curves ( sonic, density, photoelectric,

gamma, caliper, deep and shallow resistivities, neutron porosity)

The frame flexibility factor is estimated from the density,

porosity and the sonic log data.

15

Data Analysis and Interpretation

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

Data Analysis and Interpretation

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

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Higher percentage of micropore space in a carbonate

reservoir rock results in a weaker rock frame and lower

velocity than in rocks with more macropore spaces.
Such results indicate that the frame flexibility factor can

be used to quantify the geological effects on porosityvelocity relations.

Frame flexibility factor is also helpful in classifying trend

lines for porosity-impedance relations, which is valuable in

improving accuracy of porosity predictin from seismic
inversion.

18

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Carbonate permeability heterogeneity could also be better

addressed by using both porosity and the fram flexibility

factor
Fig:Cross-plot of core-porosity
against core-permeability
and color indicator is frame
flexibility factor (), cored
interval of Well
#2. In terms
of frame flexibility factor ,
two trend lines can be
generated so as to improve
permeability prediction
accuracy from porosity.

19

AVO and Impedance Inversion Modelling

To evaluate the feasibility of inverting the frame flexibility

factor and porosity simultaneously from prestack and

poststack seismic data, we study the AVO response to
pore type changes using a simple two-layer model by
solving the full Zoeppritz equation.
The two layer model consists of a shale layer overlying a

dolomite reservoir with a porosity of ~10% are constructed

for each pore type.

20

AVO and Impedance Inversion Modelling

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

AVO and Impedance Inversion Modelling

Different incident angles for both P-waves and reflected

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

AVO and Impedance Inversion Modelling

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

AVO and Impedance Inversion Modelling

Conventional Acoustic impedance inversion gives porosity

and not the spatial and vertical variations of pore structure

and pore types.
In highly heterogeneous carbonate reservoirs, SI

inversion cannot estimate porosity accurately without

taking into account the pore type variations.
AVO modelling reveals that pore type have a large

influence on AVO response especially for large offset.

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

validates the importance of frame flexibility factor () in

understanding the porosity-velocity complexity
It also helps in improving the porosity and permeability

prediction accuracy in carbonate reservoirs

25

Conclusions
The frame flexibility factor can be used to characterize

carbonate rock pore types and high permeability zones. In

the case study frame flexibility factor and sonic velocities
have inverse relationship.
Forward modelling of AVO response to pore type variation

and impedance inversion tests at well locations reveal that

3-D seismic pre-stack or angle stack inversion holds
potential for the evaluation of carbonate pore type
complexity and permeability heterogeneity in the inter-well
regions

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?