Data analysis
The data used for this research include suites of digital wireline logs (e.g. gamma-ray, resistivity and density logs from three wells, checkshot, and seismic lines. The available 3D seismic reflection data cover 102 km2 area with 637 inlines and 595 crosslines in the interval of 25. The sampling interval is 4 ms with sampling intervals per trace of 1251. The resolution of the seismic section in term of quality was further enhanced using post-processing techniques such as seismic data cropping and data smoothening with structural preserving algorithms. Figure 3 shows the basemap and the location of the drilled wells in the study area. The well correlation to map out various delineated lithologies and reservoir zones was conducted using gamma-ray and resistivity logs. The correlation was done using the stacking patterns such as fining upward, coarsing upward and blocky patterns. Despite the unavailability of the biostratigraphic data, the reservoir correlation was done with respect to a mappable candidate stratigraphic surface (cMFS) across the wells using gamma-ray logs. Four delineated and correlated reservoir sand units were code named R1, R2, R3 and R4 (Fig. 4). The step of 10 with manual horizon tracking tool was used to map out the delineated reservoir horizons across inlines and crosslines on seismic section. Seismic-to-well tie of the reservoir units on both 3D seismic and well logs data was conducted using the derived velocity model from the available checkshot data of well 0555. The time-to-depth conversion technique was used to generate synthetic seismogram which was later employed for seismic coloured inversion.
Evaluation of petrophysical parameters
Delineation and correlation of the reservoir sand units were carried out with the aid of gamma-ray and resistivity logs signatures. Several mathematical relations and models were equally used alongside pertinent wireline logs to quantitatively determine the petrophysical parameters of the delineated reservoirs such as volume of shale, net-to-gross, water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation, bulk volume of water, porosity and permeability.
Net-to-gross sand estimation
Reservoir lithological characterization in terms of sand and shale distributions was done based on shale volume determination using Eqs. (1) and (2) for tertiary unconsolidated rocks after Larinov (1969)and Schlumberger (1989). The volume of shale was estimated from gamma-ray log, and well log cut-offs were applied based on shale volume and effective porosity in order to determine net reservoir rock. Net-to-gross (NTG) ratio estimation was carried out with a view to evaluate the sand units within the study area and determine their quality as a potential reservoir. High NTG value connotes a good quality hydrocarbon reservoir (Al-Baldawi 2014).
$$I_{\text{GR}} = \frac{{{\text{GR}}_{\log } - {\text{GR}}_{\hbox{min} } }}{{{\text{GR}}_{\hbox{max} } - {\text{GR}}_{\hbox{min} } }}$$
(1)
$$V_{\text{Sh}} = 0.083 \left[2^{{(3.7*I_{\text{GR}} )}} - 1.0 \right]$$
(2)
where \(V_{\text{Sh}}\) and \(I_{\text{GR}}\) are the shale volume and gamma-ray index, \({\text{GR}}_{\log }\) is the gamma-ray reading log, \({\text{GR}}_{\hbox{min} }\) and \({\text{GR}}_{\hbox{max} }\) are the minimum and maximum reading from gamma-ray log.
Porosity determination
Porosity signifies the amount of voids or pore spaces in the rock volume, and the quantification of the amount of fluids the rock can hold. Both bulk density (RHOD) and neutron (NPHI) logs were utilized for porosity estimation using Asquith Eqs. (3) and (4) (Asquith and Krygowski 2004) for the hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs in well 0555. Wyllie time average Eq. (5) according to Wyllie et al. (1956) was used to estimate porosity from the sonic log. In a poorly consolidated, unconsolidated and/or uncompacted reservoir sand, a correction factor is necessary. Equation. (6) involving the empirical compaction factor was then applied to effect this correction. Since change in interval transit time \(\Delta t\) generally increases with hydrocarbon, sonic porosities \(\phi_{\text{S}}\) of all the mapped reservoirs across well 0111 were corrected for fluid effects using Eq. (7). The neutron-density porosity \(\phi_{\text{ND}}\) (well 0555), and sonic porosity \(\phi_{\text{S}}\) (PHIS) were engaged to calculate the effective porosity (PHIE) \(\phi_{\text{eff}}\) for shaly reservoir formations using Asquith and Krygowski (2004) Eq. (8). Fluid types, content and contacts were also identified using density-neutron crossover.
$$\phi_{\text{D}} ({\text{PHID}}) = \frac{{\rho_{\text{g}} - \rho_{\text{b}} }}{{\rho_{\text{g}} - \rho_{\text{f}} }}$$
(3)
$$\phi_{\text{ND}} = \frac{{ \phi_{D} + \phi_{N} }}{2}$$
(4)
where \(\rho_{\text{g}}\), \(\rho_{\text{f}}\) and \(\rho_{\text{b}}\) are the grain density (2.65 g/cc), apparent fluid density (1.01 g/cc) and the bulk density from the density log, respectively.
$$\phi_{\text{S}} ({\text{PHIS}}) = \frac{{\Delta t_{\log } - \Delta t_{\text{ma}} }}{{\Delta t_{\text{f}} - \Delta t_{\text{ma}} }}$$
(5)
$$\phi_{\text{S}} ({\text{PHIS}}) = \frac{{\Delta t_{\log } - \Delta t_{\text{ma}} }}{{\Delta t_{\text{f}} - \Delta t_{\text{ma}} }}*\frac{1}{{C_{\text{P}} }}$$
(6)
And \(C_{\text{P}} = C\frac{{\Delta t_{\text{Sh}} }}{100}\)
$$\phi_{{{\text{S}}({\text{corrected}})}} = 0.9 \phi_{\text{S}}$$
(7)
$$\phi_{\text{eff}} = (1 - V_{\text{Sh}} )\varphi ,\,\phi = \phi_{\text{ND}} \,{\text{or}}\,\phi_{\text{S}}$$
(8)
where \(\Delta t_{\text{ma}}\), \(\Delta t_{\text{f}}\) and \(\Delta t_{\log }\) are the matrix interval transit time (55.5 \(\mu s/ft\)), apparent fluid interval transit time (189 \(\mu s/ft\)) and the interval transit time from the sonic log, respectively. \(C\) is the shale compaction coefficient ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 depending on the regional geology. \(\Delta t_{\text{Sh}}\) is the specific acoustic transit time in adjacent shales, whereas 100 \(\mu s/ft\) is the acoustic transit time in a compacted shales.
Estimation of water and hydrocarbon saturation
Water saturation as the percentage of the reservoir volume that is made up of water was estimated using Archie Eq. (9)
$$S_{\text{w}} = \sqrt {\frac{{a*R_{\text{w}} }}{{R_{\text{t}} * \phi^{m} }}}$$
(9)
where a and m are the tortuosity and cementation exponent taking as 0.81 and 2, respectively, \(\phi\) is the porosity (\(\phi_{\text{ND}}\) or \(\phi_{\text{S}}\)). \(R_{\text{t}}\) is the true resistivity of the formation measured by deep laterolog on the assumption that the formation is greater than 1 m (about 3ft), and the formation invasion is not too deep (Asquith and Krygowski 2004). \(R_{0}\) is the resistivity of the reservoir when the entire fluid is water and \(R_{\text{w}}\) is the formation water resistivity at the formation temperature, it is determined using Eq. (10) from both the resistivity and porosity logs within clean water zone.
$$R_{\text{w}} = \frac{{\phi^{m} R_{0} }}{a}$$
(10)
Consequent hydrocarbon saturation \(S_{\text{h}}\) (Schlumberger 1989) denoting the percentage of the pore volume in a formation occupied by hydrocarbon is determined using Eq. (11).
$$S_{\text{h}} = (100 - S_{\text{w}} )\%$$
(11)
Bulk volume of water determination
Bulk volume of water (BVW) which determines whether the hydrocarbon from the reservoir would be water free or not was estimated using Eq. (12) according to Morris and Briggs (1967).
$${\text{BVW}} = S_{\text{w}} \times \phi$$
(12)
Permeability estimation
Free-fluid Coates model that is applicable to water saturated and/or hydrocarbon-saturated reservoirs was used in this research. The model assumes a good correlation between porosity, pore throat size and pore connectivity. This model has been validated, with the assumptions valid for clastic reservoirs such as those in the Niger Delta basin. Equation (13) used after Coates and Denoo (1981) was derived to ensure zero permeability as porosity and water saturation approach zero and hundred percentage, respectively.
$$K^{1/2} = [100\phi_{e}^{2} (1 - S_{\text{wi}} )/S_{\text{wi}} )]$$
(13)
$$S_{\text{wi}}^{2} = \frac{F}{2000},F = \frac{a}{{\phi^{m} }}$$
(14)
where \(S_{\text{wi}}\) is irreducible water saturation, F is the formation factor and all other symbols have their usual meanings.
Dip-steering attribute
The dip-steering attribute analysis allows the creation of steering cube that contains both local dip and azimuth positions at each sample position. The attribute is quite useful for improved faults and fault zones detection. Its application minimizes the sensitivity of similarity to dipping reflectors with no apparent link to faulting by aligning adjacent trace segments with lag time. A steering cube designed using dip-steered median filter attribute can be used to effectively perform a structurally oriented filtering. When a dip-steered similarity attribute is employed, dip-steering cube can be used for enhancing multi-trace attributes simply by extracting attributes input along the reflectors. Other applications of dip-steering attributes include the estimation of some unique attributes such as dip and azimuth, 3D curvature and dip variance. 3D image of the principle of dip-steering attributes estimation is presented in Fig. 5; the arrows are pointing in various steering directions. Two scenarios of the dip-steering computation as applicable to the 3D seismic data are shown (Fig. 6). The first case depicts the original data where trace segments are aligned horizontally whereas the second case shows the effects of the applied full steering attribute, the location and azimuth of the traces are being updated at each trace location. Figure 7 presents the general workflow used in this study to dip steer the available 3D seismic data.
Seismic chimneys analyses
Gas chimney is detected in seismic data as vertically aligned chaotic zones with low amplitude and reflectivity. The procedures adopted in this study for creating the supervised multi-layer perceptron neural network-modelled gas chimneys cube as shown in Fig. 8 involve: (1) calculating and extracting a set of single-trace attributes and directional attributes (such as energy, frequency, continuity, dip variance, similarity and azimuth variance) that distinguish between chimneys and non-chimneys; (2) designing and training a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network with extracted attributes at interpreted chimneys and non-chimneys locations; (3) generating a chimney cube volume using the multi-attributes transformation of the dip-steered 3D seismic volume highlighting the vertical disturbances as the output of the trained neural network; and (4) visualizing and interpreting the chimney volume. A key step in generating chimney cube is the time window over which the attributes are extracted both below and above the points of investigation. In this research, time gate windows of [− 40, 40] ms length were used in order to help differentiate the chimneys from the background noise. Also, the use of dip-steered data for gas chimneys creation enhanced the discriminatory power of the all the extracted attributes where local dip information is utilized.
Ninety picksets each for the two major categories of Chimney_Yes and Chimney_No picksets were manually picked and used to tag locations that appear as chimneys (Chaotic) and smooth, respectively, across the entire 3D seismic data. These picksets were saved and later trained by pattern recognition algorithm using supervised method of multi-layer perceptron neural network to map the entire 3D seismic dataset. Thirty percentage (30%) confidence level was selected to train the selected picksets which later become the training vectors across the volume data. The training vectors were passed through the multi-layer perceptron-type neural network, and the error was used to update the weights. Also the test vectors were passed through the multi-layer perceptron-type neural network, while the error was used to check the training performance and avoid overfitting. The entire training process was stopped when the error on the test set was minimal, and this occurred when the normalized RMS curve with respect to the percentage miscalculation curve became flat. The output nodes of the neural network are Chimney_Yes and Chimney_No with values approximately between 0 and 1 representing the chimney probability. Choosing a threshold value, this method creates binary values indicating presence or absence of chimneys.
Common contour binning
CCB was applied on already structurally mapped polygons on both R1 and R2 horizons with intentions of identifying subtle hydrocarbon-related anomalies and delineating contacts (GWC, GOC and OWC). Expected outcome of CCB analysis usually include 2D section with stacked traces and a crossplot of stacked amplitudes against bin depth. The designated polygon on R1 has inline/crossline (5101/1031–5585/1557) of 1251 samples with Z-values (450–700 ms.). However, the mapped structurally polygon for R2 of 5126/1048 to 5582/1562 has 1251 samples and Z-slice values (500–750 ms.); a total of 260483 traces were stacked for CCB of R2 horizon.
Seismic coloured inversion (SCI)
Seismic coloured inversion is similar to seismic processing in approach whereby the seismic data passed through white spectrum during deconvolution. The entire procedures and workflow (Fig. 9) employed in carrying out SCI are similar to that of Lancaster and Whitcombe (2000), and Veeken and Da Silva (2004). The 3D seismic dataset and well 0111 sonic and density logs spectra within the inversion window were compared and analysed to design the amplitude spectrum of a specific operator. This process ultimately brought the seismic amplitudes to correspond with those observed in the well logs. The designed operator was then engaged to modify the average seismic trace spectral in order to be as nearly closed to the fitted curve representing the average acoustics impedance spectrum as possible. The phase spectrum of the designed SCI operator was then rotated by − 90° (Lancaster and Whitcombe 2000); a bandpass filter was applied and the new spectrum was converted to time. 3 and 108 Hz were the low-cut and high-cut frequency parameters for the designed operator at − 60 dB amplitude. The designed seismic coloured inversion operator, based on the band-limited impedance algorithm in time domain (Ferguson and Margrave 1996), was finally applied to the entire 3D seismic data as a “user-designed filter” through a predefined convolution procedure. The general assumption of this method of inversion is that the seismic data used is zero-phase and has been compensated for by the phase rotation of the designed operator.