1887

Abstract

Summary

A well-calibrated petroelastic model is critical for time-lapse quantitative interpretation, linking dynamic reservoir property changes to seismic attributes such as impedance, AVO gradient, and intercept. This study assesses the sensitivity of these attributes to saturation and pressure changes using several common dry rock frame models. Although all models fit static sonic logs reasonably well, their 4D seismic responses differ significantly. For CO displacing brine in a depleted gas reservoir, the Stiff sand model generates the highest 4D responses, while the 95th percentile of the patchy cement model derived via probabilistic calibration produces the lowest. In some models, the gradient shifts from negative to positive at certain saturation levels during injection, deviating from the typical negative gradients expected for softening effects, highlighting the complex behaviour of CO and hydrocarbon gas in the reservoir. Cementation type in the patchy cement model minimally affects saturation-induced elastic changes but strongly influences pressure-related responses alongside hyperparameter variations. Additionally, stress-sensitive models based on compliance theory produce notably different pressure-induced 4D responses compared to Hertzian theory-based models. These findings emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate models and accounting for model uncertainties to ensure reliable 4D seismic interpretations for reservoir monitoring in carbon capture and storage projects.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521151
2025-10-27
2026-01-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Avseth, P., Skjei, N. and Mavko, G. [2016]. Rock-physics modeling of stress sensitivity and 4D time shifts in patchy cemented sandstones, Application to the Visund Field, North Sea. The Leading Edge, 35(10), 868–878.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Côrte, G., Toh, S.Y., Landa, J., Pickup, G., Kopydlowska, B., Heidari, H., Kolajoobi, R.A. and MacBeth, C. [2024], November. A Compositional Sim2Seis Workflow for Modelling CO2 Dissolution Effects on 4D Seismic Data. In Fifth EAGE Global Energy Transition Conference & Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Han, D. H., & Batzle, M. L. [2004], Gassmann’s equation and fluid-saturation effects on seismic velocities. Geophysics, 69(2), 398–405.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Heidari, H., and MacBeth, C. [2024], Assessment of Different PEM Calibrations Across Multiple Datasets for 4DQI. 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. MacBeth, C., [2004], A classification for the pressure-sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics, 69(2), 497–510.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J. [2020], The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521151
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521151
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