1887
Volume 56, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The Gassmann relations of poroelasticity provide a connection between the dry and the saturated elastic moduli of porous rock and are useful in a variety of petroleum geoscience applications. Because some uncertainty is usually associated with the input parameters, the propagation of error in the inputs into the final moduli estimates is immediately of interest. Two common approaches to error propagation include: a first‐order Taylor series expansion and Monte‐Carlo methods. The Taylor series approach requires derivatives, which are obtained either analytically or numerically and is usually limited to a first‐order analysis. The formulae for analytical derivatives were often prohibitively complicated before modern symbolic computation packages became prevalent but they are now more accessible. We apply this method and present formulae for uncertainty in the predicted bulk and shear moduli for two forms of the Gassmann relations. Numerical results obtained with these uncertainty formulae are compared with Monte‐Carlo calculations as a form of validation and to illustrate the relative characteristics of the two approaches. Particular emphasis is given to the problem of correlated variables, which are often ignored in naïve approaches to error analysis. Going out to the error level that the two methods were compared, the means agree and the variance of the Monte Carlo method for bulk modulus grows with input error.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00725.x
2008-07-09
2020-07-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArtolaF.A.V. and AlvaradoV.2006. Sensitivity analysis of Gassmann's fluid substitution equations: Some implications in feasibility studies of time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Journal of Applied Geophysics59, 47–62
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BerrymanJ.1999. Origin of Gassmann's equations. Geophysics64, 1627–1629.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BroadheadM.K.2005. Aspects of an analytical uncertainty analysis for Gassmann fluid substitution. 67th EAGE meeting, Madrid , Spain , Expanded Abstracts, P108.
  4. CacuciD.G.2003. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis Volume 1, Theory . Chapman & Hall/CRC. ISBN 1584881151.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CooperA.A., SchlotterT.W., Gal‐ChenT. and ParsonsD.B.1992. Observations in Atmospheric Science. Part I: The Analysis of Observations . The Advanced Study Colloquium Series, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder , CO .
    [Google Scholar]
  6. EngelmarkF.2002. Error propagation in Gassmann modeling for 4D feasibility studies. The Leading Edge21, 984–987.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. LandrøM.2002. Uncertainties in quantitative time‐lapse seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting50, 527–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LankstonR.1998. Propagating uncertainty in fluid replacement modeling: A tool for time lapse seismic survey planning and amplitude variation with angle (AVA) analysis. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans , Louisiana , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 48–51.
  9. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.1998. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521620686.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MeyerS.L.1975. Data Analysis for Scientists and Engineers . John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0471599956.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. MorganM.G. and HenrionM.1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521427444.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. RonenY.1988. Uncertainty Analysis . CRC Press. ISBN 084936714X.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SenguptaM. and MavkoG.1999. Sensitivity analysis of seismic fluid detection. 69th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 180–183.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00725.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00725.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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