1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 68, Issue 7
  5. Article
Volume 68, Issue 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

One of the major aspects of rock‐physics forward modelling is to predict seismic behaviour at an undrilled location using drilled well data. It is important to model the rock and fluid properties away from drilled wells to characterize the reservoir and investigate the root causes of different seismic responses. Using the forward modelling technique, it is possible to explain the amplitude responses of present seismic data in terms of probable rock and reservoir properties. In this context, rock‐physics modelling adds significant values in the prospect maturation process by reducing the risk of reservoir presence in exploration and appraisal phases. The synthetic amplitude variation with offset gathers from the forward model is compared with real seismic gathers to ensure the fidelity of the existing geological model. ‘Prospect A’ in the study area has been identified from seismic interpretation, which was deposited as slope fan sediments in Mahanadi basin, East Coast of India. The mapped prospect has shown class‐I amplitude variation with offset response in seismic without any direct hydrocarbon indicator support. The existing geological model suggests the presence of an excellent gas reservoir with proven charge access from the fetch area, moderate porosity and type of lithology within this fan prospect. But, whether the seismic response from this geological model will exhibit a class‐I amplitude variation with offset behaviour or ‘dim spot’ will be visible; the objective of the present study is to investigate these queries. A rock‐physics depth trend analysis has been done to envisage the possibilities of class‐I reservoir in ‘Prospect A’. Forward modelling, using a combination of mechanical and chemical compaction, shows the synthetic gas gathers at ‘Prospect A’, which are class I in nature. The study has also depicted 2D forward modelling using lithology and fluid properties of discovery well within similar stratigraphy to predict whether ‘dim spot’ will be seen in seismic. The estimated change in synthetic amplitude response has been observed as ∼5% at contact, which suggests that the changes will not be visible in seismic. The study connects the existing geological model with a top‐down seismic interpretation using rock‐physics forward modelling technique to mature a deep‐water exploratory prospect.

© 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12983
2020-06-30
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12983
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alvarez, P., Marin, W., Berrizbeitia, J., Newton, P., Barrett, M. and Wood, H. (2018) Seismic reservoir characterization of a class‐1 amplitude variation with offset turbiditic system located offshore Cote d'Ivoire, West Africa. Interpretation, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2017-0163.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Avseth, P. (2000) Combining Rock Physics and Sedimentology for Seismic Reservoir Characterization in North Sea Turbidite Systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
  3. Avseth, P., Mukerji, T. and Mavko, G. (2005) Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511600074.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Avseth, P.Å. and Lehocki, I. (2016) Combining burial history and rock‐physics modeling to constrain AVO analysis during exploration. The Leading Edge, 35(6), 474–560. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle35060528.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chakrabarty, S., Verma, S.K. and Shukla, M. (2018) Facies analysis, depositional regime and sedimentation processes in Mahanadi basin. ONGC Bulletin, 53(1), 35–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) website. www.dghindia.org.
  7. Dræge, A. (2011) A diagenetic rock physics approach for siliciclastics. The Leading Edge, 30(12), 1368–1375. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3672481.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dræge, A. (2016) Preserving geology in rock physics depth trends. Expanded abstract, SEG International Exposition and 86th Annual Meeting, pp. 3283–3287. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2016-13577114.1.
  9. Dræge, A. (2019) Geo‐consistent depth trends: honoring geology in siliciclastic rock‐physics depth trends. The Leading Edge, 38(5), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle38050379.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dvorkin, J. and Nur, A. (1996) Elasticity of high‐porosity sandstones: theory for two North Sea datasets. Geophysics, 61:1363–1370. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444059.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hashin, Z. and Shtrikman, S. (1963) A variational approach to the elastic behavior of multiphase materials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 11, 127–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Mauricio, J. (2005) Integrating Geology, Rock Physics and Seismology for Reservoir Quality Prediction. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
  13. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T. and Dvorkin, J. (1998) The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2277/0521543444.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Mondal, S., Yadav, A. and Chatterjee, R. (2018) Integration of rock physical signatures with depositional environments: a case study from East Coast of India. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 148(2018), 256–264.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Mindlin, R.D. (1949) Compliance of elastic bodies in contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 16, 259–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Nur, A. (1992) Critical porosity and seismic velocities in rocks. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 73, 43–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Peddy, C.P., Sengupta, M.K. and Fasnacht, T.L. (1995) AVO analysis in high‐impedance sandstone reservoirs. The Leading Edge, 14(8), 871–877. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1437175
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ramm, M. and Bjørlykke, K. (1994) Porosity depth trends in reservoir sandstones: assessing the quantitative effects of varying pore‐pressure, temperature history and mineralogy, Norwegian Shelf data. Clay Miner, 29, 475–490.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Roden, R., Forrest, M., Holeywell, R., Carr, M. and Alexander, P.A. (2014) The role of AVO in prospect risk assessment. Interpretation, 2(2), SC61–SC76. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2013-0114.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Shrestha, R.J. (2009) Reservoir Characterization of the High‐Impedance Tight Gas Sands in the Ada Field, North Louisiana, Abstract, AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 7–10 June 2009.
  21. Walderhaug, O. (1996) Kinetic modeling of quartz cementation and porosity loss in deeply buried sandstone reservoirs. AAPG Bulletin, 80(5), 731–745.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Yongyi, L., Downton, J. and Xu, Y. (2007) Practical aspects of AVO modeling. The Leading Edge, 26(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2715053.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Zimmer, M. (2003) Controls on the Seismic Velocities of Unconsolidated Sands: Measurements of Pressure, Porosity and Compaction Effects. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12983
Loading
Rock‐physics forward modelling to predict seismic behaviour: A case study for exploration target in Mahanadi basin, East Coast of India
Geophysical Prospecting 68, 2186 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12983
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12983
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12983
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): AVO; Rock physics; Seismic interpretation

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