3 views

Uploaded by Rubaiyn Almuni

- Intrinsic Porosity
- The Influence of Discontinuity Orientation on the Behaviour of Tunnels
- L16 Formation Pressure w10c
- Plane Wave Reflection and Transmission Coefficients
- Agar Geiger 2015 FundaFluidFlowCarbonates
- Char Porosity HR Shale_Harris
- PJST13_2_521 Core and Drill
- OVERPRESSURES.pdf
- PAPER 1, Integration of Pore Pressure Fracture Gr
- March 27, 2013 PM
- Lecture 7
- 1.PNG
- The Facts on File Dictionary of Forensic Science.pdf
- Porosity
- Petrophysical Analysis
- ISRM-10CONGRESS-2003-207.pdf
- Mix Metal Hydroxide
- T 10ASandMediaSpecifications JME
- 1-s2.0-S0167610505000851-main
- Hydrodinamica Heap Leaching Ubc

You are on page 1of 4

Satinder Chopra

CSEG RECORDER | May 2005 | VOL. 30 No. 05

The question that we framed this month is on Gassmans equation and we picked up experts who have done a lot of work in this

area. The first answer is written by Gary Mavko from Stanford University, and the second one is written jointly by Keith Katahara

from Spinnaker Exploration Company, and Tad Smith from Veritas DGC Inc., Houston. We thank them for sending in their

responses. Since the two answers could not be combined itemwise, they have been included separately.

Question

Fluid substitution essentially refers to prediction of seismic velocities in rocks saturated with one fluid from dry rocks or

rocks saturated with another fluid. Gassmanns equation has been frequently used for such prediction of effects of fluid

saturation on seismic properties.

What are the assumptions on which Gassmans equation is based and how accurate are its predictions?

Is Gassmanns equation applicable to only particular lithologies, i.e. valid for certain types of sandstones and not

valid for carbonates? How about its application to laminated shaly-sands or a fine-layered sand shale sequence?

If the rocks are dry and anisotropic, is there a way to predict seismic velocity for fluid saturated anisotropic

rocks?

What are some of the other ways of addressing the problem of fluid substitution?

Answer 1

Fluid substitution refers to prediction of seismic velocities in rocks saturated with one fluid from dry rocks or rocks saturated with

another fluid. Gassmanns equation has been frequently used for such prediction of effects of fluid saturation on seismic

properties.

Q: What are the assumptions on which Gassmans equation is based and how accurate are its predictions?

Seismic fluid substitution modeling using Gassmanns equation has become routine in the analysis and interpretation of seismic

velocities and amplitudes. Fluid substitution is central to quantitatively understanding seismic attributes for hydrocarbon

detection, analyzing 4D seismic, and even for understanding seismic signatures of lithology and porosity, since lithologic

signatures usually have fluid effects superimposed. Gassmanns equation is remarkably robust and general. When used under the

appropriate conditions, it is usually as accurate as the measurements of saturation, velocity, and porosity that go into the equation.

However, as with just about any quantitative tool in geophysics, petrophysics, or rock physics, the devil is in the details.

Gassmann derived his famous equation using a rigorous mechanical analysis. His theory assumes that a dry rock behaves as a

porous linear elastic solid with well defined elastic bulk modulus (reciprocal of compressibility) and shear modulus. The pore

fluid is assumed to interact with the solid only by applying pore pressure to the internal surfaces of the pore space. As compressive

stress is applied to the external surfaces of the rock (for example, stress from a passing P wave), the frame elastically compresses;

the compression squeezes the pore fluid, which induces an increment of pore pressure. This pore pressure resists the compression

of the pore space, hence, stiffening the rock. Some specific assumptions of the theory:

1) Gassman theory assumes that the solid phase of the rock is elastic and homogenous. Strictly speaking, Gassmann theory

applies only to monomineralic rocks for example, pure quartz sandstones, or very clean limestones. In practice, rocks usually

have mixed mineralogies. To get by, we usually cheat a little bit by estimating the average bulk modulus of the mineral mix, and

then substitute this average into Gassmanns equation. Normally, this assumption works well, although clay presents special

problems. The elastic moduli of clay are very much smaller than those of quartz, feldspar, calcite, and dolomite, so that large

amounts of clay can cause the average-mineral method to introduce errors. Furthermore, pore filling clay and structural clay

impact the fluid effects differently, so that the best mineral-averaging scheme becomes lithology-dependent. Brown and Korringa

published a generalization of Gassmanns equation that allows for mixed mineralogy, although their theory requires an additional

constant, which again is sensitive to the details of how the minerals are distributed at the microscopic scale. Hence, this constant is

difficult to determine.

The good news is that at high porosities (> 20%), the Gassmann predictions are relatively insensitive to the details of the

mineralogy; at smaller porosities, errors in mineral moduli become more problematic.

2) Gassmann theory assumes only pure saturations, for example, 100% water, 100% oil, or 100% gas, without mixtures.

Reservoirs always have mixtures of fluids: oil and water, gas and water, or all three. To get around this, we estimate the average

density and compressibility of the mixture of pore fluids and substitute these averages into Gassmanns equation (another cheat).

Unfortunately the proper way to estimate the effective compressibility of the fluid mix is not unique, but depends on the way in

which the water, oil, and gas are distributed throughout the pore space. We have to consider whether the fluids are uniformly

mixed at a fine scale, or whether the saturation is patchy. Choosing the appropriate fluid mixing rule is very important when

there is free gas, but is relatively unimportant in oil-water systems.

3) Gassmann theory assumes isotropic rocks. The most common form of Gassmanns equation assumes that the minerals

making up the rock are isotropic (almost never true) and that the pore space and mineral distributions are statistically isotropic

without a predominant alignment or fabric. (Actually, Gassmann also published an anisotropic version of his famous equation,

although we seldom know enough about our rocks to use it.) In practice, the most common approach is to ignore rock and mineral

anisotropy, although the practical consequences of this have not been well established.

4) Gassmann theory assumes perfect communication of the fluids in the pore space. When a passing wave squeezes on a

rock, heterogeneities in the pore space lead to microscopic pore- pressure gradients and subsequent flow of the pore fluid.

Gassmanns theory assumes that the fluid can easily flow and relax these wave-induced pore pressure gradients during a seismic

period. This assumption applies best to low viscosity pore fluids and to high porosity rocks with good pore space connectivity.

Situations that can lead to trouble include very heavy oil, very high frequencies (as in laboratory ultrasonic measurements), high

shale content, and low permeability.

Q: Is Gassmanns equation applicable to only particular lithologies, i.e. valid for certain types of sandstones and not valid for

carbonates? How about its application to laminated shaly-sands or a fine-layered sand shale sequence?

The answers to these questions lie in the assumptions that I have already mentioned. I have used Gassmann successfully in clean

and dirty sandstones, limestones, and chalks. The presence of a lot of clay complicates the estimate of appropriate average mineral

moduli that we need as an input into Gassmanns equation. Also, clay inhibits the movement of fluids in the rock, which can lead

to a breakdown in Gassmanns assumption of easy fluid flow within the pore space. We cannot use Gassmanns equation to

compute fluid substitution in shale, but of course, we dont usually need to worry about fluids changing in shale. Heavy oil (high

viscosity) will also lead to violation of easy-flow assumption. Microporosity within clay or other grains leads to complications

one approach to dealing with this is to consider the microporosity to be part of the mineral, but then the elastic moduli of this

microporous mineral is difficult to estimate.

Regardless of the rock type, I generally do not expect Gassmanns equation to describe fluid effects at ultrasonic frequencies,

where there is simply not enough time for the fluid to flow and equilibrate during the ultrasonic period. One mistake that I see too

often is that people test Gassmanns equation on ultrasonic laboratory measurements on dry and saturated rocks. When

Gassmanns equation does not explain these high frequency data, they conclude that Gassmanns theory is wrong and should not

be used in the field. This is nonsense. Lab and field situations are completely different when it comes to fluid substitution.

A few recent publications, as well as some of my own on-going research, indicate that special care must be taken when working

with laminated shaly sands. Gassmanns equation is still appropriate in the thin cleaner sand layers, but not in the low permeability

shale layers. If the layering is finer than the sonic or seismic wavelength, then applying Gassmanns equation brute force to the

measured velocities will lead to an overprediction of the fluid sensitivity. However, if we down-scale the problem and only

apply fluid substitution to the sand laminae, then well be more accurate. The key here is to have some independent information

that the laminae are present, what fraction is sand, and what are the porosity and elastic moduli of the sand.

Q: If the rocks are dry and anisotropic, is there a way to predict seismic velocity for fluid saturated anisotropic rocks?

Anisotropic fluid substitution equations have been published by Gassmann and later by Brown and Korringa. Both of these share

the same assumptions of an isotropic mineral modulus and a well-connected pore space. The equations are simple to program and

to use. However, they require knowledge of the complete elastic tensor of the rock, which we seldom know. For a transversely

isotropic rock, we need 5 independent anisotropic elastic constants, and for an orthorhombic rock, we need 9 constants. In the

field, the sonic log and density log will yield just one elastic constant, while adding a shear wave sonic will yield a second

constant.

So what do we do? Most commonly, people just ignore the anisotropy and apply the usual isotropic Gassmann equation. Another

approach (though rare) is to try to model the anisotropy, assuming something about the rock fabric, for example, aligned micro or

macro fractures, aligned mineral grains, or lamination. If the rock is anisotropic because of finely-laminated sand and shale, then

use the strategy that I mentioned in the previous question instead of applying one of the anisotropic fluid substitution equations.

Im actually in the process of writing a paper on the difference between isotropic and anisotropic fluid substitution. Ive found a

few simplifying approximations that should help.

Q: What are some of the other ways of addressing the problem of fluid substitution?

The famous Biot theory also presents equations for how fluids impact the velocities of rocks. These attempt to describe the

problem over the whole range of frequencies. In the limit of very low frequency, Biots equations reduce to the famous Gassmann

equation. Quite a few years ago, we showed that Biot actually neglects some very important effects at very high frequencies. The

short answer is that I almost never use Biot theory, and I dont particularly recommend getting distracted by its mathematical

elegance.

Another approach to fluid substitution is to use one of the penny-shaped crack models. The best-known are the ones of OConnell

and Budiansky, Kuster and Toksoz, and Berryman. The approach here is to model the pore space with a distribution of penny-

shaped (ellipsoidal) cavities, evaluating the equations separately for dry cavities, oil-filled cavities, water-filled cavities, etc. It is

extremely important to recognize that these models have perfectly disconnected pore space. Therefore, they give predictions very

different from Gassmann. They have been relatively successful in describing fluid substitution under high-frequency laboratory

conditions ( where Gassmann does not work well). We might also find that these work well for some tight rocks and very high

viscosity oils, although I generally dont recommend using these penny-shaped crack models unless you really know what youre

doing.

Finally, dont use laboratory ultrasonic measurements on rocks with different fluids as an indication of the fluid effects in the field.

This is generally just a bad approach, unless you have specific reason to think that the pore space is poorly connected in a way that

will violate Gassmanns assumptions. Ive seen a few studies where lab data seemed to agree with field data in heavy oils, but be

careful.

Let me summarize. Gassmanns theory is remarkably accurate and robust. Most often, when disagreements are found between

Gassmann and field measurements, it can be traced to mistakes inappropriate mineral moduli, measurement errors in velocity,

density, or porosity. When working with well logs, my experience has been that we are more likely to have problems from mud-

filtrate invasion and measurement errors than with the theory itself.

Answer 2

Response by Keith Katahara, Spinnaker Exploration Company, and Tad Smith, Veritas DGC Inc.

Basic Assumptions

Gassmann theory makes the following assumptions: 1) the rock is homogeneous and isotropic, 2) all the pores are interconnected

(i.e., effective porosity), 3) the fluids are immiscible and homogeneously distributed, and 4) frequencies are sufficiently low

enough for changes in pore-fluid pressure to equalize during sonic or seismic wave propagation (that is, the pore fluids are

relaxed). It is important to note that Gassmann theory makes no assumptions about pore geometry. Thus, as long as these four

key assumptions are valid, Gassmann theory should work well. However, it is well known that these assumptions often break

down in older and more consolidated reservoir rocks. Here, we give a very brief overview of some common types of departure

from ideal Gassmann behavior. More detail can be found in Mavko et al. (1998), Wang (2000), and Smith et al. (2003).

The conditions of isotropy and homogeneity may often be violated in natural sediments (e.g., laminated and/or shaly sands).

Brown and Korringa (1975) generalized Gassmann theory to allow for anisotropy and microscopic inhomogeneity. Their

equations relate the elastic moduli of an anisotropic dry rock to the elastic moduli of the same rock saturated with fluid. Rocks that

are isotropic and homogeneous on a macroscopic scale can also diverge from Gassmann behavior due to microscopic

inhomogeneity and anisotropy. Experiments by Berge et al. (1993) and Hart and Wang (1995) indicate that this sort of divergence

from Gassmann behavior can be significant for reservoir rocks.

Clay-bearing sands are among the most interesting reservoir rocks with significant inhomogeneity. There are several issues in

applying Gassmanns equation, or its generalizations to such rocks. One problem is that elastic properties of clay minerals are not

well known. Although some measurements of clay properties exist (e.g., Wang et al., 2001, Prasad, 2002), the results are often

widely different. Another issue is that the textural distribution of clay minerals has a significant effect on the elastic properties

(Minear, 1982). Ball et al. (2004) describe a scheme for determining clay distribution and using it to model the elastic properties

of shaly sands. Katahara (2004) suggests a less rigorous approach to modeling laminated shaly sands that relies on empirical

trends.

Gassmann theory often fails in carbonate rocks (Capello and Batzle, 1997, Wang et al. 1990). This may be a function of the pore-

space connectivity in carbonates (Smith et al., 2003), or the presence of microcracks in the rock matrix.

Frequency Effects and Pore Connectivity

Sedimentary rocks often contain cracks in the rock matrix (a special type of pore with very low-aspect-ratios), or intersecting

pores of different geometries. For these scenarios, pressures within the pores may not equalize at sonic, or even at seismic,

frequencies. When fluid pressures do not have time to equalize at the frequency of interest, the sediment becomes stiffer than

Gassmann theory would predict. The resultant velocities are therefore faster than expected.

Fluid effects

Gassmann theory assumes that all pore fluids are homogeneously distributed. For the special case where the reservoir fluids are

not homogeneously distributed, pore pressures may not have time to equilibrate between adjacent fluid patches during a seismic

or sonic event (that is, the pore fluids are not relaxed). This will cause the velocity to be higher than that predicted by Gassmann

theory. Figure 1 shows an example of sonic-frequency measurements that agree well with Gassmanns equation when saturations

are homogeneous, and also agree with a patchy saturation model (see Mavko et al., 1998) when there are distinct wet and dry

zones. Patchy saturation may arise during reservoir production or injection, or because of mud filtrate invasion while drilling.

Figure 1. Velocity vs. water saturation in unconsolidated sand (Liu et al., 2001).

When saturation is homogeneous, Gassmann theory adequately predicts the measured velocities. The patchy saturation model

adequately predicts the velocity when dry and water-saturated zones are vertically segregated.

A practical problem arises when fluid pressures are not equilibrated at sonic frequencies, but are equilibrated at seismic

frequencies: how can wireline sonic data be used to predict seismic behavior? First the sonic data must be analyzed with a non-

Gassmann theory, such as patchy saturation or the empirical model of Brie et al. (1995). Then Gassmann theory is used to estimate

the saturated rock velocity at seismic frequencies. Some applications are described by Packwood and Mavko (1995) and Walls and

Carr (2001).

Biots theory of poroelasticity (e.g., see Mavko et al., 1998) treats both high and low frequencies, and includes Gassmann theory

as the low-frequency limit. Other theories exist which describe velocity behavior under special circumstances (e.g., squirt flow

theory by Mavko and Jizba, 1991); most other theories are modifications of the more general Biot-Gassmann theory.

Ball et al. (2001), and Han and Batzle (2004) suggest a simple approximation to Gassmanns equation in which the change in the

bulk modulus of the rock is proportional to the change in the pore-fluid bulk modulus. The proportionality constant is basically a

function of the porosity and the drained frame bulk modulus. This formulation makes computations a little easier and makes the

physics a little more transparent.

- Intrinsic PorosityUploaded bydownbuliao
- The Influence of Discontinuity Orientation on the Behaviour of TunnelsUploaded byNadim527
- L16 Formation Pressure w10cUploaded byMohammad Iqbal Mahamad Amir
- Plane Wave Reflection and Transmission CoefficientsUploaded byThiago R. Gomes
- Agar Geiger 2015 FundaFluidFlowCarbonatesUploaded byLado Richie
- Char Porosity HR Shale_HarrisUploaded bydownbuliao
- PJST13_2_521 Core and DrillUploaded byYasser Géologue
- OVERPRESSURES.pdfUploaded byAntonio Jose da Costa
- PAPER 1, Integration of Pore Pressure Fracture GrUploaded byAlejandro
- March 27, 2013 PMUploaded byOSDocs2012
- Lecture 7Uploaded byKarthik Palaniswamy
- 1.PNGUploaded byمحمد أحمد عبداللطيف
- The Facts on File Dictionary of Forensic Science.pdfUploaded byAdrian Alberto Romero Bernal
- PorosityUploaded bysolihin
- Petrophysical AnalysisUploaded byarief_7
- ISRM-10CONGRESS-2003-207.pdfUploaded byMaria Renee Carrasco
- Mix Metal HydroxideUploaded byNahid
- T 10ASandMediaSpecifications JMEUploaded byIan Chadwick
- 1-s2.0-S0167610505000851-mainUploaded byLisa Poole
- Hydrodinamica Heap Leaching UbcUploaded bySteven Dzioba
- Project ELEC533 Wan PengfeiUploaded byeyob233
- 1-s2.0-S1385894705000628-mainUploaded byAli Abdullah
- 02-0201Uploaded bySeif Eddine
- tmpBB67Uploaded byFrontiers
- i 0346671Uploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- Effects of oil shale addition on the microstructure and mechanical properties of porous ceramics from Moroccan raw clayUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Assessment of the Relative Suitability of Three Different Soils for Dry Season Lettuce Production in GhanaUploaded byIJEAB Journal
- ndx_smithUploaded byBabak Salimifard
- New Method for Studying the Pore Structure of Late Cretaceous Dinosaur EggshellUploaded bycobraregala21
- 11891_010212162426Uploaded byigor collins

- Bulan-tereliyeUploaded byAzza Mafazah
- Depth of InvestigatiomUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Buah Dari KesabaranUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Analisa.pdfUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- World Magnetic Model Calculator.pdfUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- 02. Transformasi FourierUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Model Konduktivitas BatuanUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Tata Cara Penulisan Daftar Pustaka.pdfUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Instalasi MathType.v6.docxUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- FUNGSI GAMMA (9.29(c))Uploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Persamaan Homogen.docxUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Untukmu Cinta Sejati Pertamaku, IbuUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- 01. Konsep Sinyal Dan SistemUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Bumi-TereLiye1Uploaded byDitya Fatma
- All IN One_ Modem Booster 8 (Menambah Kecepatan Koneksi Internet).pdfUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Final DianUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- OutUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Panduan LengkapUploaded byJamilah Midhong
- Geol i StrikUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Kajian Perubahan Garis Pantai Berdasarkan Analisa Pengindraan JAuh.pdfUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Tugas 1 Geodinamika Andi Anas (F1B1 10 062)Uploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Tugas 1 Geodinamika Andi Anas (F1B1 10 062)Uploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- 03_dinamika-pantai.pdfUploaded bypascatekgeoUH13
- Your Last DayUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Sistem Jaringan Drainase Irigasi.pdfUploaded bygalante gorky
- Persamaan HomogenUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Apa Itu Teknik Geofisika.pdfUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Final DianaUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni
- Final DianaUploaded byRubaiyn Almuni

- Gmdka CanadaUploaded byalkadri
- JOURNAL MELTAUploaded bySuccessful Saiful
- Physics Notes on Elementary ParticlesUploaded bywww.bhawesh.com.np
- Master's Thesis - The Role of Business Intelligence (BI) in Enhancing the Competitive Advantages of OrganizationsUploaded byAli
- Vaughan Definitivo 37Uploaded byGerardo Feliú Varela
- Perfect NumbersUploaded byRichard Tremblay
- Umrah Guidelines for the Young OnesUploaded bylolliesplace
- United States v. Swann, 4th Cir. (2000)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Fair & LovelyUploaded byTaohid Khan
- gis project reportUploaded byapi-308544528
- Chriselda Guerrero v. Loretta Lynch, 4th Cir. (2015)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Hamid Dabashi's Most Great 2015 Facebook TiradeUploaded byWahid Azal
- Jargon Preferred UsageUploaded byGowrisankar Rao
- 6 TORCHUploaded byani bandaso
- Fisiologi Genitourinary SystemUploaded byPandu Dian Wicaksono
- dbqUploaded byapi-299498550
- Dasah Maha VidyaUploaded byAcharya Gopi Krishna Yadav
- D-DAY Brochure 70th AnniversaryUploaded bydswami
- United States v. George W. Schell John B. Cain, Jr., A/K/A John Boy Thomas R. Stevens, A/K/A Hyper and Freda Virginia Gallo Wilson, 775 F.2d 559, 4th Cir. (1985)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- 6 QualitiesUploaded byrahmaa04
- AIChE August 2013 Rev 1Uploaded byAyoola Ayodeji
- Analysis of Dep Water HorizonUploaded byadityatri
- Mesh Size in Finite Element Modelsby Rahul DeshmukhUploaded byRPDesh
- Relevant Cost for Decision Making-problemUploaded bybiwithse7en
- Notes for Reporting (Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication)Uploaded byJulyen Lianne Defensor Robles
- Project Management by Gray and Larson (1)Visit Us @ Management.umakant.infoUploaded bywelcome2jungle
- Effectiveness and importance of product placement in mediaUploaded by*DeeDee*
- Surface Production FacilitiesUploaded byarif
- Brown Dev. Corp. v. Hemond, CUMre-06-058 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2006)Uploaded byChris Buck
- Chapter 9 Skill BuildingUploaded byLisa Lim