Toolbox for estimation of cement volume

Ivan Lehocki and Per Avseth

Odin Petroleum AS, Norway

Introduction

Results

Initial quartz cementation is important geologic factor that affects the

seismic fluid predictability in reservoir sandstones. The initial cement
drastically changes the AVO signatures of the reservoir and also reduces
the pressure and fluid sensitivity of the sandstones. Through quantitative
rock physics links, we are able to estimate cement volume from well-log
data.

In this research we investigate the impact of cement on rock physics

properties in North Sea Heimdal Formation sandstones. The well
penetrated a thick turbiditic gas sand with a thin oil leg. Logs are shown
in Figure 3.

Without quantifying the volume fraction of cement, we would not be able

to forecast the correct pore fluids in wells.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for the general sources of quartz cementation.
External sources are indicated by a dark blue arrow; internal sources by a
blue arrow. Figure is adapted from Worden et al. (2000).

2100
2120
Depth (m)

The results can be linked to seismic data for better understanding of

seismic signatures. By better understanding of the rock texture, we can
also improve our predictability for hydrocarbons from well-log and seismic
data by better explanation of the observed sonic and seismic signatures in
terms of fluid and rock properties.

2080

2140
2160
2180
2200
2220
30

60 90 120
GR (API)

Pwave
Swave
1
3
5
Velocity (km/s)

Vp
Vs
1.8

2.3
2.8
0
4
8
12
Density (g/cc) Impedance ((g/cc)x(km/s))

Fig. 3. Log data taken from well 24/6-2 in North Sea. The gas-saturated
top Heimdal sands (red) show a slight increase in velocities and
impedances, while the density decreases notably. Reservoir sands are
capped by shales.

Rock texture can be diagnosed from rock physics models of elastic moduli
or velocities versus porosity. Quantification of cement volume as function
of depth can be done by using these diagnostic models (Fig. 4). Models
utilized in this work include the unconsolidated sand model and contact
cement model (Dvorkin and Nur, 1996) together with the constant cement
model (Avseth et al., 2000, Avseth et al., 2005).

30

Target

25

cem<0
Constant cement

25

20
Cement volume (%)
15

5.5

1.0
2.5 0.0

10
5
0
0

Friable sand
0.1

DvorkinNur
contact cement
0.2
Porosity

Shear modulus (GPa)

Shear modulus (GPa)

30

Constant cement trends

HashinShtrikman upper bound

20

7
6
5
4

15

Increasing cement volume

3

10

Contact cement

Cement volume (%)

Theory and methods

1
Friable sand

0.3

0.4

Fig. 2. Shear modulus versus porosity of well 24/6-2 in North Sea.

The shear modulus-porosity space is analysed by applying rock physics
models. The initial cementation is captured by Dvorkin-Nur contact
cement model. The cement volume is estimated by interpolating between
the constant cement lines.

0
0

0.1

0.2
Porosity

0.3

0.4

Fig. 4. Shear modulus versus total porosity with rock physics models
superimposed. Black squares are data below unconsolidated sand line.

Toolbox for estimation of cement volume

Ivan Lehocki and Per Avseth
Odin Petroleum AS, Norway

Results

Conclusions

Estimated cement volume is plotted as a function of depth. The results are

validated by comparison to quartz cement and total cement volume from
thin section (Figure 5).

point-to-point estimation of cement volume in reservoir zones

results can be linked to seismic data for better understanding of
seismic signatures
by better understanding of the rock texture, we can also improve our
predictability for hydrocarbons from well-log and seismic data

2080
Total cement
2100

Literature cited

Depth (m)

2120
2140

Avseth, P., Dvorkin, J., Mavko, G. and Rykkje, J. [2000] Rock physics diagnostic
of North Sea sands: Link between microstructure and seismic properties.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2761-2764

2160
2180
2200
Top
Target
2220
0
10
20
Shear modulus (GPa)

Avseth, P., Jrstad, A., van Wijngaarden, A. J. and Mavko, G. [2009] Rock
physics estimation of cement volume, sorting, and net-to-gross in NorthSea sandstones, The Leading Edge, 98-108

Quartz cement
1.5

2
2.5
Vp/Vs ratio

cement<0
0
4
8
Cement volume (%)

0.5
1
Clay content

Fig. 5. Estimated cement volume versus depth for well under investigation
together with some other petrophysical logs. Green circles on cement
volume log represent quartz cement from thin-section, while red circles
denote total cement from thin-section. Note the nice match between
estimated cement volume and point-count total cement volume.

Pwave velocity (km/s)

Well 1
Well 2

Worden, R. and Morad, S. [2000] Quartz Cementation in Sandstones, 1st

edn. Oxford: Blackwell science Ltd

Thanks to Lundin-Norway for providing data used in this study.

For further information

0.2

Porosity

0.3

Please contact authors:

ivan.lehocki@odin-petroleum.no
per.avseth@odin-petroleum.no
http://www.odin-petroleum.no/
Telephone: +47 55 31 93 00

0.4

2100
2110
2120
2130
Depth (m)

Dvorkin, J. and Nur, A. [1996] Elasticity of high-porosity sandstones:

Theory for two North Sea datasets. Geophysics, 61, 1363-1370.

Acknowledgments

2
0.1

Avseth, P., Mukerji, T. and Mavko, G. [2005] Quantitative seismic

interpretation: Applying rock physics tools to reduce interpretation risk:
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 359 p.

2140
2150
2160
2170
2180
2190

Well 1
Well 2
2200
4
8
12
AI ((g/cc)x(km/s))

1.5

2
2.5
Vp/Vs ratio

6 4 2 0
Cement volume (%)

0.5
1
Clay content

Fig. 6. Tool application on two neighbouring wells. Observed higher

acoustic impedance values in well 2 are easily explained with larger
cement volume as compared to well 1.