1887
Volume 57, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We have developed a method to determine the effect of pore pressure depletion on elastic framework moduli, by utilizing sonic logs from wells drilled at different locations through a reservoir at varying depletion stages. This is done by first inverting the sonic logs for elastic framework bulk and shear moduli, thus carefully removing pressure dependent fluid effects. By crossplotting these elastic framework moduli against an increase in net stress (which is directly related to depletion), we derive the stress sensitivity of the elastic framework moduli. We found that the observed stress sensitivity was consistent with time‐lapse seismic results and that the sensitivity derived from the sonic logs was much smaller than predicted by hydrostatic measurements on core samples. This method is applicable to depletion scenarios in mature fields and can be used both for modelling and inverting time‐lapse seismic data for effects of pore pressure depletion on seismic data.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00744.x
2008-10-17
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BakulinA.2003. Intrinsic and layer‐induced vertical transverse isotropy. Geophysics68, 1708–1713.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BatzleM. and WangZ.1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics57, 1396–1408.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CalvertR.2005. Insights and Methods for 4D Reservoir Monitoring and Characterization . SEG/EAGE DISC Course.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ChristensenN.I. and WangH.F.1985. The influence of pore pressure and confining pressure on dynamic elastic properties of Berea sandstone. Geophysics50, 207–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CizR., SigginsA.F., GurevichB. and DvorkinJ.2008. Influence of microheterogeneity on effective stress law for elastic properties of rocks. Geophysics73, E7–E14.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DillenM.W.P., CrutsH.M.A., GroenenboomJ., FokkemaJ.T. and DuijndamA.J.W.1999. Ultrasonic velocity and shear‐wave splitting behaviour of a Colton sandstone under a changing triaxial stress. Geophysics64, 1603–1607.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DrægeA., FurreA.‐K. and El OuairY.2007. Stress‐velocity sensitivity in Gullfaks Brent reservoir sands. 77th SEG meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2857–2860.
  8. EastwoodJ., LebelP., DilayA. and BlakesleeS.1994. Seismic monitoring of steam‐based recovery of bitumen. The Leading Edge13, 242–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. EikenO. and TøndelR.2005. Sensitivity of time‐lapse seismic data to pore pressure changes: Is quantification possible?The Leading Edge24, 1250–1254.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. FurreA.‐K., AndersenM., MoenA.S. and TønnessenR.K.2007. Sonic log derived pressure depletion predictions and application to time‐lapse seismic interpretation. 69th EAGE meeting, London, UK, Expanded Abstracts, P077.
  11. FurreA., BakkenE., KløvT. and NordbyL.H.2006. Heidrun 2001–2004 time‐lapse seismic project: integrating geophysics and reservoir engineering. First Break24, 33–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FurreA.K. and BrevikI.1998. Characterization of angle dependency in sonic logs. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans , Louisiana , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 292–295.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GangiA.F. and CarlsonR.L.1996. An asperity‐deformation model for effective pressure. Tectonophysics256, 241–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HansenH.J., GommesenL. and El OuairY.2006. Using RFT data for elastic rock properties' dependency on pore pressure in 4D quantitative analysis. 68th EAGE meeting, Vienna , Austria , Expanded Abstracts, A021.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HatchellP. and BourneS.2005. Rocks under strain: Strain‐induced time‐lapse time shifts are observed for depleting reservoirs. The Leading Edge24, 1222–1225.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HofmannR., XuX., BatzleM., PrasadM., FurreA.‐K. and PillitteriA.2005. Effective pressure or what is the effect of pressure?The Leading Edge24, 1265–1260.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HornbyB.E.1996. An experimental investigation of effective stress principles for sedimentary rocks. 66th SEG meeting, Denver , Colorado , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1707–1710.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LandrøM.2001. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics66, 836–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LandrøM., SolheimO.A., HildeE., EkrenB.O. and StrønenL.K.1999. The Gullfaks 4D seismic study. Petroleum Geoscience5, 213–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LumleyD.1995. 4‐D seismic monitoring of an active steamflood. 65th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 203–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LumleyD.2001. Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics66, 50–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MacBethC.2004. A classification for the pressure‐sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics69, 497–510.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.1998. The Rock physics Handbook . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521543444.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and GodfreyN.1995. Predicting stress‐induced velocity anisotropy in rocks. Geophysics60, 1081–1087.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. NesO.‐M., HoltR.M. and FjærE.2000. The reliability of core data as input to seismic reservoir monitoring studies. SPE European Petroelum Conference, Paris , France , SPE 65180.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. PrasadM. and ManghnaniM.H.1997. Effects of pore and differential pressure on compressional wave velocity and quality factor in Berea and Michigan sandstones. Geophysics62, 1163–1176.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. RickettJ., DurantiL., HudsonT., RegelB. and HodgsonN.2007. 4D time strain and the seismic signature of geomechanical compaction at Genesis. The Leading Edge26, 644–647.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ScottT.E.Jr. 2007. The effects of stress paths on acoustic velocities and 4D seismic imaging. The Leading Edge26, 602–608.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. StaplesR., ItaJ., BurrellR. and NashR.2007. Monitoring pressure depletion and improving geomechanical models of the Shearwater Field using 4D seismic. The Leading Edge26, 636–642.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. TuraA., BarkerT., CattermoleP., CollinsC., DavisJ., HatchellP. et al . 2005. Monitoring primary depletion reservoirs using amplitudes and time shifts from high‐repeat seismic surveys. The Leading Edge24, 1214–1221.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WattsG.F.T., JizbaD., GawithD.E. and GutteridgeP.1996. Reservoir monitoring of the Magnus field through 4D time‐lapse seismic analysis. Petroleum Geoscience2, 361–372.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. XuX., HofmannR., BatzleM. and TsheringT.2006. Influence of pore pressure on velocity in low‐porosity sandstone: Implications for time‐lapse feasibility and pore‐pressure study. Geophysical Prospecting54, 565–573.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00744.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00744.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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