ICIPEG 2016 pp 45-59 | Cite as

Sensitivity Analysis of Sandstone Rock Elastic Properties to Effective Pressure Using a New Rock Physics Workflow and Its Application for Time-Lapse Seismic Data Analysis

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

Sensitivity analysis of sandstone rock frame to pressure has been an appealing area of research in upstream oil and gas industry. Knowledge of the effects of various pressures on sandstone elastic properties has been used to interpret 3D seismic data and also to use time-lapse seismic data sets to monitor the dynamic changes in an oil and gas reservoir. Rock physics models build a relation between rock elastic properties and reservoir pressure; therefore, two rock physics approaches are used commonly to illustrate the dependency of rock elastic parameters to pressure. The first approach is empirical equations, and the second is to use contact theory models. Laboratory-derived empirical equations are used to relate rock elastic properties to pressure variations. Besides these equations, contact theory models also are used to investigate the sandstone rock elastic properties to pressure changes. The aim of this research is to present a new rock physics workflow to predict the effect of different pressures on dry sandstone rock elastic properties. Hertz–Mindlin contact theory in conjunction with the pore space stiffness theory is cooperated to model the pressure effects on dry rock seismic properties. This new rock physics workflow is calibrated with laboratory measurements on core samples. The results of the developed rock physics workflow show a perfect fit with the pressure laboratory measurements on core samples. Unlike other contact theory rock physics models, our workflow requires less time with a straightforward approach. An application of this rock physics workflow for time-lapse seismic feasibility modeling is also included in this research.

Keywords

4D seismic data Rock physics model Pressure sensitivity analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this research papers want to express their deepest gratitude and thanks to PETRONAS for providing data and funding for this research. We are also so thankful of Universiti Technologi PETRONAS and University of Alberta, especially Tiewei He and Dr. Schmitt letting us to use the data and providing support for this research.

References

  1. 1.
    T. M. Smith, C. H. Sondergeld, and C. S. Rai, “Gassmann fluid substitutions: A tutorial,” GEOPHYSICS, vol. 68, pp. 430–440, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. H. Johnston, Practical applications of time-lapse seismic data. U.S.A.: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. L. Packwood, Rock Physics for Hydrocarbon Recovery Monitoring: Stanford University, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Danaei, M. Hermana, A. G. Rafek, and D. Ghosh, “Time-lapse seismic feasibility modelling and AVO sensitivity analysis for quantification of pressure-saturation effects in fields located in Malaysian basins,” presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2016.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Landro and K. Duffaut, “Vp-Vs Ratio Versus Effective Pressure And Rock Consolidation - a Comparison Between Rock Models And Time-lapse AVO Studies,” presented at the SEG Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Das, B. Roy, P. G. Folstad, B. Lyngnes, B. Smith, and A. Grandi, “A rock physics modelling workflow for compacting chalk reservoirs: Ekofisk Case study,” presented at the Second International Workshop on Rock Physics, Southampton, 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Islam, “Time-lapse seismic observations and effects of reservoir compressibility at Teal South oil field,” Doctor of Philosophy in Geological Engineering, Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and Science, Michigan Technological University, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. A. Terry, C. C. Knapp, and J. H. Knapp, “Effective medium models and rock physics analysis for marine gas hydrates in Northern Gulf of Mexico,” in International Conference on Gas Hydrates, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. A. Smith, F. D. Lane, and S. Danudjaja, “Interpreting 4D seismic response to change in effective pressure with rock physics modeling,” presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. H. Russell and T. Smith, “The relationship between dry rock bulk modulus and porosity-An empirical study,” Consortium for Research in Elastic Wave Exploration Seismology, CREWES research report2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Mavko and T. Mukerji, “Seismic pore space compressibility and Gassmann’s relation,” GEOPHYSICS, vol. 60, pp. 1743–1749, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Russell, “A Gassmann-consistent rock physics template,” Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, vol. 38, 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. R. Saberi, “Rock physics integration: from petrophysics to simulation,” presented at the 10th Biennial International Conference and Exposition Society of Petroleum Geophysicists, India, Kochi, India, 2013.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. He, “P- and S-wave velocity measurment and pressure sensitivity analysis of AVA response,” Master of science, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. MacBeth, “A classification for the pressure-sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame,” GEOPHYSICS, vol. 69, pp. 497–510, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Calvert, Insights and methods for 4D reservoir monitoring and characterization. Tulsa, U.S.A.: SEG, EAGE, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Eberhart-Phillips, D. H. Han, and M. D. Zoback, “Empirical relationships among seismic velocity, effective pressure, porosity, and clay content in sandstone”, Geophysics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 82–89, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Avseth, and T. Mukerji, “Seismic lithofacies classification from well logs using statistical rock physics”, Petrophysics, vol. 43, no. 2, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. MacBeth, J. Soldo, and M. Floricich, “Going Quantitative with 4D Seismic Analysis”, 74th Ann. Internat. Mtg, Society of Exploration Geophysicist P2283–2286, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Murphy, A. Reischer, and K. Hsu. “Modulus decomposition of compressional and shear velocities in sand bodies”, Geophysics, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 227–239, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences, Faculty of Geosciences and Petroleum EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASTronoh, PerakMalaysia

Personalised recommendations