1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 69, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 69, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Cretaceous shales from the emerging gas province of the Rovuma basin are examined using well‐log data from two exploration wells. The P‐wave acoustic impedance (AI) data were estimated, and then brittleness and ductility were assessed within the framework of the Reuss–Voigt limits for acoustic impedance. We then predicted the shale consolidation using a weighting function () which varies between 0 for the case of grains in suspension (the Reuss limit) and 1 for the case of consolidated rock or cemented shale (the Voigt limit). At the Reuss limit, the formation AI is highly sensitive to pressure while at the Voigt limit the formation AI is insensitive to pressure. For the wells in this study, most data plot close to the lower bound with < 0.5, hence showing a significant sensitivity to pressure. Although the Cretaceous shales in the Rovuma basin are dominated by a mechanical compaction regime, some onset of chemical compaction is observed. The rock‐physics analysis showed that the same shale in these two exploration wells had very distinctive and contrasting elastic properties. The deeper well interval clearly shows a ductile shale while the shallower well shows a range of ductile to brittle behaviour matching with the onset of chemical diagenesis at temperatures >58°C. These differences in the development and rate of chemical diagenesis in the same formation are likely due to contrasts in the rate of burial and have important implications for future seismic exploration studies.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2021 The Authors. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13104
2021-06-14
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13104
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/69/6/gpr13104.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13104&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Avseth, P. and Skjei, N. (2011) Rock physics modeling of static and dynamic reservoir properties – a heuristic approach for cemented sandstone reservoirs. Leading Edge, 30(1), 90–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ba, J., Yu, H., He, X., Li, J., Zhang, X. and He, X. (2015). Rock Physics Models and Quantitative Seismic Prediction of Heterogeneous Gas Reservoirs – A Case Study in Metejan Area of Amu Darya Basin. In J.Ba, Q.Du, J. M.Carcione, H.Zhang, & T. M.Muller, (Eds.), Seismic Exploration of Hydrocarbons in Heterogeneous Reservoirs (pp. 292‐335). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420151-4.00008-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bjørlykke, K. (1998) Clay mineral diagenesis in sedimentary basins – a key to the prediction of rock properties. Examples from the North Sea Basin. Clay Minerals, 33(1), 15–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowers, G.L. (1995) Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drilling and Completion, 10(2), 89–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dræge, A., Jakobsen, M. and Johansen, T.A. (2004) Rock physics modelling of shale cementation. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1778–1781 doi: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1845170.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Fawad, M., Mondol, N.H., Jahren, J. and Bjørlykke, K. (2011) Mechanical compaction and ultrasonic velocity of sands with different texture and mineralogical composition. Geophysical Prospecting, 59(4), 697–720.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Fjær, E., Stenebråten, J.F. and Bakheim, S. (2018) Laboratory test for studies on shale barrier formation. InProc. US Rock Mechanics /Geomechanics Symp. 18–1146, pp. 1842–1848. Seattle: ARMA.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Francis, M., Milne, G., Kornpihl, K.D., Tewari, S., Rathee, D., Barlass, D., Broadbent, K. (2017) Petroleum systems of the deepwater Mozambique Basin. First Break, 35(6), https://doi.org/10.3997/1365‐2397.35.6.89456.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Grieser, B. and Bray, J. (2007) Identification of production potential in unconventional reservoirs. Production and Operations Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/106623‐MS
  10. Havens, J. and Batzle, M. (2014) Thomsen parameter relationships and estimation from laboratory ultrasonic data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2772–2777.Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2014‐0809.1
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Holt, R.M., Fjær, E., Stenebråten, J.F. and Nes, O.‐M. (2015) Brittleness of shales: relevance to borehole collapse and hydraulic fracturing. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 131, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.006
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Holt, R.M., Larsen, I., Fjær, E., StenebråtenJ.F. (2020) Comparing mechanical and ultrasonic behaviour of a brittle and a ductile shale: Relevance to prediction of borehole stability and verification of shale barriers. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 187, 706–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106746.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Horne, S.A. (2013) A statistical review of mudrock elastic anisotropy. Geophysical Prospecting, 61(4), 817–826.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jarvie, D.M., Hill, R.J., Rudle, R.E. and Pollastro, R.M. (2007) Unconventional shale‐gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of North‐Central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale‐gas assessment. AAPG Bulletin, 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1306/12190606068
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Macgregor, D., Argent, J. and Sansom, P. (2018) Introduction to the thematic set: tectonics and petroleum systems of East Africa. Petroleum Geoscience, 24, 3–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Mahanjane, E.S. and Franke, D. (2014) The Rovuma delta‐deep water fold‐and‐thrust belt, offshore Mozambique. Tectophysics, 614, 91–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mavko, G. and Mukerji, T. (1998) Bounds on low‐frequency seismic velocities in partially saturated rocks. Geophysics, 63(3), 918–924.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T. and Dvorkin, J. (2020) The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Mondol, N.H. (2018) Seal quality prediction using E‐Poisson's ratio rock physics templet – a case study from the Norwegian Barents Sea. Geoconvention, pp. 1–5. 7–11 May 2018, Calgary, Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Nhabanga, O. and Ringrose, P. (2019) Assessment of mudstone compaction in exploration wells in the Rovuma Basin, offshore Mozambique. Heliyon, 5(10), e02641.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Pan, X.‐P., Zhang, G.‐Z., Chen, J.‐J. (2020) The construction of shale rock physics model and brittleness prediction for high‐porosity shale gas‐bearing reservoir. Petroleum Science, 17(3), 658–670. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12182‐020‐00432‐2.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Perez Altamar, R. and Marfurt, K. (2014) Mineralogy‐based brittleness prediction from surface seismic data: Application to the Barnett Shale. Interpretation, 2(4), T255–T271. https://doi.org/10.1190/int‐2013‐0161.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ramdhan, A.M. and Goulty, N.R. (2018) Two‐step wireline log analysis of overpressure in the Bekapai Field, Lower Kutai Basin, Indonesia. Petroleum Geoscience, 24(2), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2017‐045.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Ryan, W., Carbotte, S.M., Coplan, J.O., O'Hara, S., Melkonian, A., Arko, R., et al. (2009). http://www.geomapapp.org. https://doi.org.10.1029/2008GC002332.
  25. Salman, G. and Abdula, I. (1995) Development of the Mozambique and Ruvuma sedimentary basins, offshore Mozambique. Sedimentary Geology, 96(1‐2), 7–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037‐0738(95)00125‐r.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. SargentC., GoultyN. R., CicchinoA. M. P. and RamdhanA. M. (2015) Budge–Fudge method of pore‐pressure estimation from wireline logs with application to Cretaceous mudstones at Haltenbanken. Petroleum Geoscience, 21(4), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2014‐088.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Storvoll, V. and Brevik, I. (2008) Identifying time, temperature, and mineralogical effects on chemical compaction in shales by rock physics relations. The Leading Edge, 27(6), 750–756.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomsen, L. (1986) Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophysics, 51(10), 1954–1966.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ugborugbo, O. and Rao, T. (2009) Impact of borehole washout on acoustic logs and well‐to‐seismic ties. Society of Petroleum Engineers, https://doi.org/10.2118/128346‐MS
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13104
Loading
Use of rock‐physics analysis of well logs to determine compaction history of Cretaceous shales in the Rovuma basin, Offshore Mozambique
Geophysical Prospecting 69, 1282 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13104
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13104
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13104
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acoustics; Elastics; Petrophysics; Rock physics

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