1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 59, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 59 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Intra‐reservoir, sub‐seismic shale beds with a thickness range from 1–10 m are present in most clastic reservoirs. They are often studied to investigate their effect on fluid flow and reservoir performance. Here, it is found that shales with such thicknesses can also strongly affect the effective elastic wave behaviour of the composite reservoir, particularly when observed with frequent time‐lapse surveys. More specifically, for reservoirs experiencing pressure depletion, the effective impedance of the reservoir interval is usually expected to harden, however our results indicate that shales can reduce this hardening effect or perhaps unexpectedly soften the overall impedance. The overall stress sensitivity of the reservoir is reduced below that predicted from taking laboratory core plug measurements of sand stress sensitivity alone. These predictions are based on a combination of geomechanical and pressure diffusion phenomena that are in turn controlled by the shale thickness, permeability and the mechanical properties. As sub‐seismic shale layers of approximately 1 m thickness take less than three months to pressure equilibrate whilst thicker shale layers of 10 m can take over 20 years, in the context of repeated seismic surveying our predictions require accurate knowledge of the shale properties and statistics and hence a good description of the sedimentology. Based on our default property values, it appears that reduced or anomalous stress sensitivity is likely to be more important for 4D projects with frequent acquisitions of 3–12 months but is of less concern when seismic is repeated on conventional time periods of every 5–10 years. The critical set of parameters required to carry out accurate calibration of these predictions is not yet fully available from published literature.

© 2010 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00897.x
2010-12-13
2024-04-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00897.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BackusG.E.1962. Long‐wave elastic anisotropy produced by horizontal layering. Journal of Geophysical Research67, 4427–4440.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BestM.E. and KatsubeT.J.1995. Shale permeability and its significance in hydrocarbon exploration. The Leading Edge14, 165–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ChristensenN.I. and WangH.F.1985. The influence of pore pressure and confining pressure on dynamic properties of Berea sandstone. Geophysics50, 207–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CrankJ.1975. The Mathematics of Diffusion , 2nd edn. Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DakeL.P.2001. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering . Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DetournayE. and ChengA.H.1993. Fundamentals of poroelasticity. In: Comprehensive Rock Engineering: Principles, Practices & Projects. Volume II: Analysis and Design Method (ed. C.Fairhurst ), pp. 113–171. Pergamon .
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EikenO. and TondelR.2005. Sensitivity of time‐lapse seismic data to pore pressure changes. Is quantification possible?The Leading Edge24, 1250–1254.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FletcherJ.2004. Rock and fluid physics understanding the impact of pressure changes. SPE/EAGE Joint Workshop ‘What Do Petroleum Engineers Expect from Time Lapse Seismic, and Do Geophysicists Answer The Right Questions?’, 23–25 March, Copenhagen , Denmark .
  9. FloricichM., MacBethC., StammeijerJ., StaplesR., EvansA. and DijksmanC.2006. A new technique for pressure‐saturation separation from time‐lapse seismic: Schiehallion case study. 68th EAGE meeting, Vienna , Austria , Expanded Abstracts.
  10. FurreA., BakkenE., KløvT. and NordbyL.H.2006. Heidrun 2001–2004 time‐lapse seismic project: Integrating geophysics and reservoir engineering. First Break24, 33–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GeertsmaJ.1973. Land subsidence above compacting oil and gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology25, 734–744.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HaldorsenH.H. and LakeL.W.1984. A new approach to shale management in field scale models. SPE Journal24, 447–457.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HettemaM.H.H., SchutjensP.M.T.M., VerboomB.J.M. and GussinkloH.J.2000. Production‐induced compaction of a sandstone reservoir: The strong influence of stress path. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering3, 342–347.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HodgsonN., MacBethC., DurantiL., RickettJ. and NiheiK.2007. Inverting for reservoir pressure change using time‐lapse time strain: Application to Genesis field, Gulf of Mexico. The Leading Edge26, 649–652.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HornbyB.E.1996. An experimental investigation of effective stress principles for sedimentary rocks. 6th SEG meeting, Denver , Colorado , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1707–1710.
  16. HowardJ.J.1991. Porosimetry measurement of shale fabric and its relationship to illite/smectite diagenesis. Clays and Clay Minerals39, 355–361.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HuS.M.1989. Stress from a parallelepipedic thermal inclusion in a semi space. Journal of Applied Physics66, 2741–2743.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. JonesL.E.A. and WangH.F.1981. Ultrasonic velocities in Cretaceous shales from the Williston basin. Geophysics46, 288–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. KatsubeT.J.2000. Shale permeability and pore‐structure evolution characteristics. Geological Survey of Canada Report 2000‐E15.
  20. LeachH., HerbertN., LosA. and SmithR.1999. The Schiehallion development. In: Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 5th Conference (eds A.J.Fleet and S.A.R.Boldy ), pp. 683–692. Geological Society of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MacBethC.2004. A classification for the pressure‐sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics69, 497–510.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MacBethC., RicardL., Haj NasserY. and SchutjensP.2010. Pressure diffusion in shales as a drilling hazard. SPE Formation Evaluation (submitted).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MacBethC., StammeijerJ. and OmerodM.2006. Seismic monitoring of pressure depletion evaluated for a United Kingdom continental‐shelf gas reservoir. Geophysical Prospecting54, 29–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MacBethC., StephenK.D. and McInallyA.2005. The 4D signature of oil‐water contact movement due to natural production in a stacked turbidite reservoir. Geophysical Prospecting53, 183–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McLellanA., RowbothamP.S., RogersR. and MillingtonJ.2006. Integrated 3D/4D structural and stratigraphic interpretation on Nelson accounts for variable fluid contact levels. 68th EAGE meeting, Vienna , Austria , Expanded Abstracts, E023.
  26. NavarreJ.C., ClaudeD., LiberelleE., SafaP., VallonG. and KeskesN.2002. Deepwater turbidite system analysis, West Africa: Sedimentary model and implications for reservoir model construction. The Leading Edge21, 1132–1139.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. NeuzilC.E.1994. How permeable are clays and shales?Water Resources Research30, 145–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SaroutJ. and GueguenY.2008. Anisotropy of elastic wave velocities in deformed shales: Part 1 – Experimental results. Geophysics73, D75–D89.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SayersC.M.2007. Asymmetry in the time‐lapse seismic response to injection and depletion. Geophysical Prospecting55, 699–705.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. SayersC.M. and SchutjensP.M.T.M.2007. An introduction to reservoir geomechanics. The Leading Edge26, 597–601.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. SchloemerS. and KroossB.M.1997. Experimental characterisation of the hydrocarbon sealing efficiency of cap rocks. Marine and Petroleum Geology14, 565–580.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SchutjensP., HindriksK., Van Der HorstJ., HatchellP., Van Den BeukelA., BarkerT. et al . 2005. Reservoir monitoring with seismic timeshifts: Geomechanical modeling for its application in stacked pay. 1st IPTC meeting, Doha , Qatar , Expanded Abstracts, 10511.
  33. SegallP.1992. Induced stresses due to fluid extraction from axisymmetric reservoirs. Pure and Applied Physics139, 536–560.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SkaugM. and GundescoR.1986. Geological modelling of the Frigg field with special emphasis on shale mapping. SPE European Petroleum Conference, 20–22 October, London , UK , SPE 15859.
  35. StephenK.D., ClarkJ.D. and GardinerA.R.2001. Outcrop‐based stochastic modelling of turbidity amalgamation and its effects on hydrocarbon recovery. Petroleum Geoscience7, 163–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. StephenK.D. and MacBethC.2006. Seismic history matching in the UKCS Schiehallion field. First Break24, 43–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. WeberK.J.1982. Influence of common sedimentary structures on fluid flow in reservoir models. Journal of Petroleum Technology34, 665–672.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. YangY. and AplinA.C.2007. Permeability and petrophysical properties of 30 natural mudstones. Journal of Geophysical Research112, B03206.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00897.x
Loading
Exploring the effect of meso‐scale shale beds on a reservoir's overall stress sensitivity to seismic waves
Geophysical Prospecting 59, 90 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00897.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00897.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00897.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 4D seismic; Shales; Stress sensitivity

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error