1887

Abstract

Summary

We test the Xu-Payne (X-P) rock physics model in a carefully selected database of carbonate rocks with a wide porosity range, where velocities were measured under dry conditions in the laboratory. We assess the model by using different stiff and compliant pore aspect ratio combinations and calculating the mean percent error (MPE) in model predictions. We also compare the X-P with the Vernik-Kachanov (V-K) model and some empirical models for S-wave velocity prediction.

The model fits the P-wave velocity reasonably well, but it tends to systematically overpredict the S-wave velocity, leading to underprediction of Vp/Vs ratio. We stress the non-uniqueness in the model application, such that numerous feasible pore aspect ratio combinations and their volume fractions result in the same velocity outcomes.

The V-K model for carbonates produces an excellent fit to the data in the entire porosity range, resulting in lower MPE values than the X-P for both Vp and Vs. The V-K model, which is based on more realistic pore shapes, is also easier to calibrate. The V-K model combined with the Gassmann modelling compares favorably against the purely empirical Greenberg-Castagna model for Vs prediction, with the added advantages of accounting for realistic pore microstructure and stress sensitivity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202187011
2021-12-01
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baechle, G.T., Colpaert, A., Eberli, G.P. and Weger, R.J.
    [2007] Modeling velocity in carbonates using a dual porosity DEM model. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1589–1593.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Fabricius, I.L, Gommesen, L., Krogsboll, A. and Olsen, D.
    [2008] Chalk porosity and sonic velocity versus burial depth: Influence of fluid pressure, hydrocarbons, and mineralogy. AAPG Bulletin, 92 (2), 201–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Greenberg, M. L. and Castagna, J.P.
    [1992] Shear-wave estimation in porous rocks: Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and applications: Geophysical Prospecting, 40 (2), 195–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Mur, A. and Vernik, L.
    [2020] Rock physics modeling of carbonates. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2479–2483.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Rafavich. F., Kendall, C.H.St.C. and Todd, T.P.
    [1984] The relationship between acoustic properties and petrographic character of carbonate rocks. Geophysics, 49, 1622–1636.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Vasquez, G. F., Morschbacher, M. J., d. Anjos, C. W. D., Silva, Y. M. P, Madrucci, V. and Justen, J. C. R.
    [2019] Petroacoustics and composition of presalt rocks from Santos Basin. The Leading Edge, 38, 342–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Vernik, L.
    [2016] Seismic Petrophysics in Quantitative Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Xu, S. and Payne, M.A.
    [2009] Modeling elastic properties in carbonate rocks. The Leading Edge, 28, 66–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Yale, D.P. and Jamieson, W.H.
    [1994] Static and dynamic rock mechanical properties of carbonates. 1st North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Austin, Texas. ARMA-1994-0463.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202187011
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202187011
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