Direct Determinationof CarbonateReservoirPorosityand Pressure SO3.

6
from AVO Inversion
John D. Pigottf RajendraK. Shrestha,Universityof Oklahoma;and RichardA. Warwick,
Oryx EnergyCo.

SUWWARY

Analysis of available laboratory

carbonate compressional and shear wave
velocity data reveals that Young's modulus
can be statistically related to porosity and
differential pressure. In principle, this
would allow the direct seismic determination
of carbonate reservoir porosity and pressure
following the extraction of Young's modulus.
As a test example, Young's modulus was
derived from the minimum square inversion
of amplitude variation with offset data of
a Mississippian carbonate reservoir of the
Hardeman Basin, Texas. Applying the
statistical models yielded porosity and
differential pressure estimates which were
within 18% and 15%, respectively, of those
determined in the borehole. If these errors
are representative they are within the
practical limits needed for the seismic 8-mf-w
detection of pressure compartments. FIG. 1. Stress-strain curves for Carrara
marble showing increasing Younq’a mo&du~
INTRODUCTION with increasing confining pressures @Pa)
(after von Karman, 1911).
Recent work (Pigott et al., 1989) has
suggested that Young's modulus can be sedimentary rocks (e.g., dolomites by Handin
dynamically determined from the inversion of and Hager, Jr., 1957; the Solenhofen
amplitude variaton with offset (AVO) data, Limestone by Heard, 1960; and sandstones by
and that in principle, in-situ reservoir Gregory, 1976).
pressures could be thus determined. As the If pressure is to be compared with
vertical and horizontal porosities and dynamically estimated (i.e., from velocity
permeabilities of carbonate rocks can vary information) rock properties, it ideally
greatly within short distances, the ability should be described in terms of differential
to detect changes in carbonate reservoir pressure, where Pa is the difference
quality through reflection seismology is between conppfininq and pore pressures. Such
extremely advantageous both from an parameterization is appropriate as Wicks and
exploration and exploitation standpoint. Berry (1956) and Christensen and Wang(1985)
First, we shall develop a statistical model have shown that rock velocities are better
that describes differential pressure and described as a function of differential
porosity in carbonates as a function of pressure than by confining pressure or pore
Young's modulus. Second, with this model, fluid pressure alone.
we then shall attempt to directly determine
a carbonate reservoir porosity and OFcARBtxUTBL&BORA!IQRY
STATISTICALAWALYSIS
differential pressure from a test case of DATA
AVO inversion in the Hardeman Basin, Texas.
One of the most complete, presently
YOUNG'S NODULUSAND DI pFBRKWTIALPRKSsURR: available data sets of water-saturated
THE RATIONAL limestone cores where compressive and shear
wave velocities (V and Vs, respectively)
Young's modulus is an appropriate are described as a &rnction of porosity and
modulus for describing the effects of differential pressure are those determined
pressure upon rock properties (Piqott et by Pickett (1963) from laboratory
al., 1989). For example, von Kanuan (1911) measurementsand later analyzed by Domenico
classically illustrated the effects of (1984). We subsequently recalculated these
increasing confining pressure (PC) upon data in terms of their elastic moduli and
Young's modulus in the carrara Warble (Fiq. performed an extensive series of linear and
1): i.e., an incremental increase in Pc nonlinear regressions. Wepresent here only
yielded a slope increase in the linear those expressed in terms of Young's modUlU8.
portion of the stress-strain curve (Young's Figure 2 illustrates graphically the
modulus). Similar results have been relationship betweeP porosity (PWI)#
demonstrated since for a variety of differential pressure (Pd), and Young’s

1533
2 Porortlyand Pmssum
fromAV0
Bwsrslon

modulus (E). The two equations are: The carbonate example for the test case
is represented by 1985 vintage 18-96 Hz
PHI = 3.4376 - 0.30530 Ln E, (1) vibroseis data from the Hardhman Basin,
and Texas. The relative amplitude processing
Ln 'd = -5.5380 + 14.359PHI + 1.26063 (2) sequence utilized has been previously
described by Pigott et al. (1989).
where P and E are expressed in MPa and PHI Illustrated in Figure 3 is the common
as frac @ional volume. midpoint (CMP) gather 430. Note the trough
In terms of the goodness of fit, for both centered at 1.26 ms which represents the
examples the regressions are statistically acoustic interfacebetweentheMississippian
significan (e.g., for eq. (l), N = 63, tight Chappel Lime (first layer) and the
adjusted r f - 0.829, and p<O.OOOl; for eq. underlying porous oil-bearing Chappel
(2), N = 63, adjusted r2 = 0.751, and Dolomite (second layer). The amplitude
pc0.0001). It should be pointed out that variation with angle (AVA) from the super
other nonlinear regression combinations gather: CUP gathers 429, 430, and 431, is
which include additional elastic moduli graphically shown in Figure 4. Each CMP
(e.g., shear modulus and bulk modulus) gather is separated by 33.53 m (110 ft). The
together with Young's modulus can yield even observed best fit line is a third degree
higher r2 values (Pigott and Shrestha, in polynomial which is used only for
prep.). Yet, as these additional moduli are illustration of the general trend of the
for the most part on1 derivatives of each AVA. At the horizon depth of 2402 m (7880
other, the higher r z! numbers are not a ft), the angle of offset computed according
substantial improvement. The two equations to Ostrander's method (Ostrander, 1984)
described above should be viewed therefore varied between 2.5 and 27.6 degrees.
as being composed of the minimal terms
necessary forpractical seismic application.

PRESSURE(Pa * 10’1
DIFFERENTIAL

FIG. 3. CMP gather 430 illustrating AVO of

35’ LIMESTONE YOUNG’S MODULI VS. PRESSURE Chappel Dolomite trough centered at 1.26 ms.

CALCULATED FROM DOMENICO (1W)

,
luaMII WI wreM1llP
u-k31
I 19W ZWO 3111 11(0 SUE 6OGt
DIFFEFiENTlAL PRESSURE (P.S.1.)

FIG. 2. Relationship between porosity,

differential pressure, and Young’s modulus A

(calculated from Domenico, 1984).

ttt+ &>
;++t’
t T+
t
SEISRIC TBST CASE FOR STATISTICAL MODEL ;+ +++*_*
APPLICATIOR
Pigott et al. (1989) z
Previously,
described a minimum squares AVO inversion
technique for the determination of elastic
moduli using Shuey's (1985) simplification
of the Eoeppritz relation. In terms of the
derived Poisson ratio (sigma), density
(rho), V , and V,, Young's modulus can be
simply e$ressed as: FIG. 4. AVA data for supergather 429-431.
Triangles indicate errant points excluded.
B- *rVD2-2V82) [l+siw) (1-2siq.R#&)_ (3) Third degree polynomial best-fit line is
rho shown for illustrative purpose only.
 Porosity and Pressure from AVO Inversion 3

underestimation of the reservoir porosity

Interestingly, fortypicaldata quality but also of the differential pressure (e.g.,
the minimum square inversion technique the subsequently calculated pressures are
described by Pigott et al. (1989) is robust greatly affected by these port&ties: Table
enough in its solution ability that data 1).
preconditioning using incoherent noise
reduction by running average filter methods
does not make a significant improvement and TABLE 1. Differential pressure tpd)
therefore is not necessary. For the two estimates obtained from eq. (2) for a range
layers atsupergather CMP429-431generating of porosities for a Young's modulus of 61063
the trough reflector at 1.26 ms, V MPa.
are 6 096 m/s (20 000 ft/s) and I&l,","," $2
(19 050 ft/s), respectivelq;. Rho1 and Rho2 Porosity Differential Pressure
are 2.68 g/cm3 and 2.59 g/cm respectively. 0Wah (DSi.1
These P-wave velocities and/densities were +- 10.01 1452
taken from sonic and cross-plotted neutron- 2 11.55 1676
density logs of the borehole at CMP 430. 3 13.34 1934
However, if this AVO inversion were 4 15.40 2233
conducted with limited or no well control, 5 17.77 257%
the density instead would have been obtained 6 20.52 2976
empirically as a function of seismically 7 23.69 3435
derived interval velocities (see Gardner et 7.24 24.52 3556
al., 1974). 8 27.34 3966
Using eq. (l), the estimated porosity 8.5 29.38 4261
is 7.24% for a Young's modulus of 61 063 9 31.57 4578
MPa. Substituting this porosity estimate 10 36.44 5285
into eq. (2) provides a differential
pressure estimate of 24.5 MPa (3 556 psi).
Assuming a geostatic gradient of 22.62 KPa/m DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
(1 psi/ft), the pore fluid pressure estimate
therefore would be 29.8 MPa (4 324 psi) at Determination of dynamic Young's
2 400m (7 880 ft). Modulus from AVO inversion of reflection
We may now compare these AVO derived seismic data can yield estimates of
estimates to those determined at the well. carbonate porosities and reservoir
The cross-plotted density-neutron porosity differential pressures. Acknowledging the
average through the Chappel Dolomite is 2.8% previously mentioned inherent differences
+ 2.68, whereas the porosity average through between laboratory and field conditions of
the 8 m (26 ft) producing interval is 4.1% measurement, these results Yield relatively
+ 2.0%. The reservoir was tested (Enserch good approximations. For- example, the
reservoirengineers, personal communication, oorositv estimate of 7.24% is within 18% of
1989) at a depth of 2 402 m (7 880 ft) and ihe average reservoir maximum porosity
yielded a pore-fluid pressure of 24.9 MPa (3 interval and almost exactly coincides with
612 psi). Using a confining pressure the maximumvalue observed. The differential
gradient of 22.62 KPa/m (1 psi/ft), the pressure estimate of 24.5 Mpa (3 556 psi) is
observed differential pressure at the well within 15% of that observed in the borehole.
would then be 29.4 MPa (4 268 psi). Indeed, if the porosity estimate had been
Differences should be anticipated 8.5% instead, the predicted differential
between the laboratory based prediction and pressure would have been 29.4 KPa (4 261
that seismically predicted in the natural psi), almost exactly that observed within
laboratory owingtothree principal reasons. the perforated zone. From an applied
First, the laboratory data were conducted standpoint, future carbonate reservoir
for limestones and these reservoir rocks are porosity and pressure estimates based upon
dolomitic. Second, the laboratory carbonates the Young's modulus technique could be
were water saturated and the examined test significantly improved with direct V -V,
rocks are oil-bearing. Third, and perhaps acquisition or AVO designed acquisition
most significantly, the imaged Fresnel zone (this case study was not), increased
radius of 484 m (1 587 ft) at the depth of frequency bandwidth, and the availability of
2 402 m (7 880 ft) for a 50 Hz dominant a facies-specific carbonate lithologic data
signal frequency is substantially larger a base for statistical modeling and
sample area than the borehole radius. comparison. Still the errors between the
These preceding considerations estimated and observed porosities and
notwithstanding, we view the differences pressures are well within the range
between the predicted porosities and those presently needed for geopressure
observed in the test case as being due determination. For example, geopressured
largely to the 8 m (26 ft) porous reservoir reservoirs can yield differential pressures
zone (up to 8.5% log measured porosity) which can differ by up to 70% of the normal
dominating the acoustic response of the 30 differential pressure gradient (cf. Dutta,
m (100 ft) interval of Chappel dolomite. 1987). In the case of abnormal pressure
Ignoring the contribution of the porous zone compartments (Hunt, 1990), differential
would have led not only to a significant pressures can exhibit differences up to 27%.

1535
4 Porosity and Pressure from AVO lnvsrslon

Moreover, the 17%. error reported here is Hunt, J.M., 1990, Generation and migration
less than the 22% reported for conventional of petroleum from abnormally pressured fluid
geopressure estimates determined from compartments: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol.
stacking seismic velocities (Reynolds, Geol., 74, 1-12.
1970).
These preliminary results encourage us Karman, T. von, 1911, Festigkeitsversuche
to continue to increase and refine our unter allseitigem Druck: Z. Ver. dt. Ing.,
carbonate test data base and furthermore to 55, 1749-1757.
extend our research into elastics using the
Young's modulus technique of AVO inversion Ostrander, W.J., 1984, Plane-wave reflection
to predict reservoir porosity and pressure coefficients for gas sands at non-normal
ahead of the drill bit, angles of incidence: Geophysics, 49, 1637-
1648.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Pickett, G.R., 1963, Acoustic character logs
We thank Enserch Exploration, Inc., for and their applications in formation
making available the reflection seismic, evaluation: J. Petr. Tech., 15, 659-667.
petrophysical, and borehole pressure data,
Seismograph Service for providing Pigott, J.D., Shrestha, R.R., and Warwick,
consistently helpful processing advice, and R.A., 1989, Young's modulus from AVO
Oklahoma Seismic Corporation for donating inversion: Society of Exploration
the MIRA interpretation software. Geophysicists 59th Annual International
Meeting, 2, 832-835.
REFERENCES
Reynolds, E. B., 1970, Predicting
Christensen, N.I., and Wang, H.F., 1985, The overpressured zone with seismic data: World
influence of pore pressure and confining Oil, 171, 78-82.
pressure on dynamic elastic properties of
Berea sandstone: Geophysics, 50, 207-213. Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of the
Zoeppritz equations: Geophysics, 50, 609-
Domenico, S.N., 1984, Rock lithology and 614.
porosity determination from shear and
compressionalwavevelocity: Geophysics, 49,
1188-1195.

Dutta, N.C., 1987, Geopressure environments

and basic pressure concepts, b N.C. Dutta,
ed., Geopressure: Geopysics Reprint Series
No. 7, Sot. Expl. Geophys., 3-8.

Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory,

A-R., 1974, Formation velocity and density -
the diagnostic basics of stratigraphic
traps: Geophysics, 39, 770-780.

Gregory, A.R., 1976, Fluid saturation

effects on dynamic elastic properties of
sedimentary rocks: Geophysics, 41, 895-921.

Handin, J. and Hager, Jr., R.V., 1957,

Experimental deformation of sedimentary
rocks under confining pressure: tests at
room temperature on dry samples: Bull. Amer.
Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 41, l-50.

Heard, H.C., 1960, Changes from brittle to

ductile flow in Solenhofen Limestone as a
function of temperature,, confining pressure,
and interstitial f2a;\ilress;;;, mRoEk
Griggs and J.
Defamation, Geol. Sot. Ame;. Mem.,';9, 193-
226.
Hicks, W.G., and Berry, J.E., 1956, Fluid
saturation of rocks from velocity logs:
Geophysics, 21, 739-754.

1536