1887
Volume 63 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Predicting reservoir parameters, such as porosity, lithology, and saturations, from geophysical parameters is a problem with non‐unique solutions. The variance in solutions can be extensive, especially for saturation and lithology. However, the reservoir parameters will typically vary smoothly within certain zones—in vertical and horizontal directions. In this work, we integrate spatial correlations in the predicted parameters to constrain the range of predicted solutions from a particular type of inverse rock physics modelling method. Our analysis is based on well‐log data from the Glitne field, where vertical correlations with depth are expected. It was found that the reservoir parameters with the shortest depth correlation (lithology and saturation) provided the strongest constraint to the set of solutions. In addition, due to the interdependence between the reservoir parameters, constraining the predictions by the spatial correlation of one parameter also reduced the number of predictions of the other two parameters. Moreover, the use of additional constraints such as measured log data at specific depth locations can further narrow the range of solutions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12178
2014-10-14
2020-04-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AvsethP., MukerjiT. and MavkoG.2005. Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BachrachR.2006. Joint estimation of porosity and saturation using stochastic rock‐physics modeling. Geophysics71, O53–O63.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BachrachR. and AvsethP.2008. Rock physics modeling of unconsolidated sands: accounting for nonuniform contacts and heterogeneous stress fields in the effective media approximation with applications to hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics73, E197–E209.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BerrymanJ.G.1992. Single‐scattering approximations for coefficients in Biot equations of poroelasticity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America91, 551–571.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BoschM., MukerjiT. and GonzalezE.F.2010. Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: a review. Geophysics75, A165–A176.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DoyenP.2007. Seismic Reservoir Characterization: An Earth Modelling Perspective. EAGE Publications bv.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DoyenP.M.1988. Porosity from seismic data – a geostatistical approach. Geophysics53, 1263–1275.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DuffautK., LandroM. and SollieR.2010. Using Mindlin theory to model friction‐dependent shear modulus in granular media. Geophysics75, E143–E152.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HashinZ. and ShtrikmanS.1963. A variational approach to the theory of the elastic behaviour of multiphase materials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids11, 127–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. JensenE.H.2011. Methods for improved prediction of elastic, electrical and reservoir properties. PhD dissertation, University of Bergen, Norway.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. JohansenT., JensenE., MavkoG. and DvorkinJ.2013. Inverse rock physics modeling for reservoir quality prediction. Geophysics, M1–M18.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. JohansenT.A., SpikesK. and DvorkinJ.2004. Strategy for estimation of lithology and reservoir properties from seismic velocities and density. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts23, 1726–1729.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MindlinR.D.1949. Compliance of elastic bodies in contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics: Transactions of the ASME16, 259–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MoyanoB., JensenE.H. and JohansenT.A.2011. Improved quantitative calibration of rock physics models. Petroleum Geoscience17, 345–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MukerjiT., AvsethP., MavkoG., TakahashiI. and GonzalezE.2001. Statistical rock physics: combining rock physics, information theory, and geostatistics to reduce uncertainty in seismic reservoir characterization. The Leading Edge20, 313–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MukerjiT., BerrymanJ., MavkoG. and BergeP.1995. Differential effective‐medium modeling of rock elastic‐moduli with critical porosity constraints. Geophysical Research Letters22, 555–558.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. RammM. and BjorlykkeK.1994. Porosity/depth trends in reservoir sandstones; assessing the quantitative effects of varying pore‐pressure, temperature history and mineralogy, Norwegian Shelf data. Clay Minerals29, 475–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SainR.2010. Numerical simulation of pore‐scale heterogeneity and its effects on elastic, electrical and transport properties . PhD thesis, Stanford University.
  19. SaulM., LumleyD. and ShraggeJ.2013. Modeling the pressure sensitivity of uncemented sediments using a modified grain contact theory: incorporating grain relaxation and porosity effects. Geophysics78, D327–D338.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WaltonK.1987. The effective elastic‐moduli of a random packing of spheres. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids35, 213–226.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12178
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12178
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Parameter estimation , Reservoir geophysics and Rock physics
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