1887

Abstract

Summary

In this study, we investigate the stability of three common stress-dependent rock physics models through a probabilistic analysis of how well constrained each model parameter is using core data. We do this by inverting for model solutions using ultra-sonic velocity-stress measurements. All models show a relatively good fit to the observed data. However, two of the models show slightly poor data fit to the S-wave data. This suggests the parameters of the model do not accurately define the trade off in the curvature between the P- and S-wave relationships. All sets of parameters show similar constraint, which produce almost identical error bounds to their velocity-stress relationships. These relatively small constraint values with respect to the total parameter space demonstrate that each model inversion has a unique and constrained solution for each material. Two of these models have parameters that are measurable from suitable mineralogical data. However, these constraint values indicate that these rock physical properties may need to be accurately measured to assume a relatively similar tight data fit. These general parameter constrains can also be used to calculate error in 4D velocity change.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601235
2016-05-30
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ANGUS, D. A., J. P.VERDON, Q. J.FISHER and J.-M.KENDALL
    2009. Exploring trends in microcrack properties of sedimentary rocks: An audit of dry-core velocity-stress measurements. Geophysics, 74(5), pp.E193–E203.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. HALL, S. A., J.-M.KENDALL, J.MADDOCK and Q.FISHER.
    2008. Crack density tensor inversion for analysis of changes in rock frame architecture. Geophysical Journal International, 173(2), pp. 577–592.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. KENDALL, J.-M., Q.FISHER, S. C.CRUMP, J.MADDOCK, A.CARPER, S.HALL, J.WOOKEY, S.VALCKE, M.CASEY and G.LLOYD.
    2007. Seismic anisotropy as an indicator of reservoir quality in siliciclastic rocks. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 292(1), pp. 123–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. MAKSE, H. A., N.GLAND, >D. L.JOHNSON and L. M.SCHWARPZ.
    1999. Why effective medium theory fails in granular materials. Physical Review Letters, 83(24), p5070.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. PRIOUP, R., A.BAKUPIN and V.BAKUPIN.
    2004. Nonlinear rock physics model for estimation of 3D subsurface stress in anisotropic formations: Pheory and laboratory verification. Geophysics, 69(2), pp.415–425.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. SAMBRIDGE, M.
    1999a. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—I. Searching a parameter space. GeophysicalJoumal International, 138(2), pp.479–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1999b. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—II Appraising the ensemble. Geophysical Joumal International, 138(3), pp.727–746.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. SAYERS, C. M.
    2002. Stress-dependent elastic anisotropy of sandstones. Geophysical prospecting, 50(1), pp.85–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. SHAPIRO, S. A.
    2003. Elastic piezosensitivity of porous and fractured rocks. Geophysics, 68(2), pp.482–486.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. TOD, S.
    2002. Phe effects of stress and fluid pressure on the anisotropy of interconnected cracks. Geophysical Journal International, 149(1), pp.149–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ZIMMERMAN, R. W., W. H.SOMERPON and M. S.KING
    1986. Compressibility of porous rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth (1978–2012), 91(B12), pp. 12765–12777.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601235
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601235
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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