1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. Third EAGE Workshop on Rock Physics
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

In this study, porosity concepts in Gassmann’s fluid substitution model are examined and their implications for quantitative 4D seismic studies are discussed. Three porosity models (total porosity, effective porosity, and a movable fluid model) are compared from a simulator to seismic (sim2seis) modelling perspective. From the three selected models, total porosity predicts the largest softening effect due to gas breakout and the smallest hardening effect from water-flooding; whereas the movable fluid model predicts the least softening due to gas breakout and the largest effects for water-flooding. Effective porosity predictions lie between the total porosity and movable fluid models. The differences between these models are due to the proportion of fluids in the mixture which are input into Gassmann’s equations. Sim2seis results based on different porosity models were evaluated against the observed 4D seismic. This comparison shows that the magnitude of the saturation-induced hardening and softening signals due to the movable fluid model is closer to the observed seismic. The total porosity model is in least agreement with the observed 4D seismic.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201414391
2015-11-15
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201414391
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. GrechkaV.
    2009. Fluid-solid substitution in rocks with disconnected and partially connected porosity. Geophysics74, WB89–WB95.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. GrochauM. and GurevichB.
    2009. Testing Gassmann fluid substitution: sonic logs versus ultrasonic core measurements. Geophysical Prospecting57, 1365–2478.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. HookJ.R.
    2003. An introduction to porosity. Petrophysics44, 205–212.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. MatthewsS.A., LovellM.A., DaviesS.J., PritchardT., AbdelkarimA. and SirjuC.
    2013. Fluid substitution in laminated sand-shale sequences: an innovative approach to Gassmann’s equation. Petroleum Geoscience Conference & Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. MayA.
    2005. Using wet shale and effective porosity in a petrophysical velocity model. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. OTC No. 17643-MS.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. SimmR.
    2007. Practical Gassmann fluid substitution in sand/shale sequences. First Break25, 61–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. TaggartI.
    2002. Effective versus total porosity based geostatistical models: Implications for upscaling and flow simulations. Transport in Porous Media46, 251–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. WangZ.
    2001. Fundamentals of seismic rock physics. Geophysics66, 398–412.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. YanF., HanD. and YaoQ.
    2013. Effective porosity for Gassmann fluid substitution. 83rd SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2861–2865.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201414391
Loading
Porosity Concepts in Gassmann Fluid Substitution: A Simulator to Seismic Modelling Perspective
Conference Proceedings 2015, 1 (2015); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201414391
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201414391
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201414391
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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