Seismic and Boundaries: Is It Fluid or Rock?

Contributors: Satinder Chopra

Identifying and mapping fluid-contact boundaries within a reservoir system with seismic technology are common objectives when doing a characterization of a hydrocarbon reservoir – and monitoring the movement of fluid boundaries during secondary and tertiary recovery processes of oil always has been essential for optimizing oil production.

When attempting to analyze a fluid-contact boundary, a seismic interpreter must confront a challenging problem – how do you determine if a particular seismic reflection event is caused by a contact boundary between two different fluids, or by the contact between two different rock types?

Starting in the 1980s people began to see that an efficient way to answer this question was to acquire both P-wave and S-wave seismic data across a rock/fluid system that had to be interpreted.

An example of a petrophysical interpretation that can be made from a combined analysis of P-wave and S-wave data is illustrated as figure 1.

These seismic profiles, published in 1985, follow the same track across a known gas field.

Three reflection events are labeled on the P-wave profile; two of these profiles are absent on the S-wave profile. The common reflection that appears on both the P-wave and S-wave data is caused by a contact between two different rock types and is labeled as “lithology.”

The two events that appear on the P-wave data but not on the S-wave data are contact boundaries between brine and gas.

A second example that also appeared in the 1980s is presented as figure 2. In this prospect area, the challenge was to determine if bold reflection events seen on P-wave data were caused by gas or by coal.

If the cause was gas, the reflecting interface was a contact boundary between two fluids – gas and brine – embedded in the targeted sand interval. If the cause was coal, the reflecting interface was a contact boundary between two different lithologies – coal and its host sand.

Wells were drilled that confirmed the following important findings:

When a reflection event appeared on both P-wave and S-wave data, the event was caused by the contact between two different lithologies.

When a reflection event appeared on P-wave data but not on S-wave data, the event was caused by a fluid-contact boundary (brine and gas in this instance).

The P-wave and S-wave seismic data displayed on figures 1 and 2 illustrate some important principles.

First, P-wave seismic wavefields reflect from boundaries created by the contact between two different lithologies and also from the contact between two different pore fluids embedded in a constant-matrix host rock.

In contrast, S-wave seismic wavefields reflect from boundaries between contrasting lithologies but do not reflect from fluid-contact boundaries unless there is a significant change in bulk density across the fluid boundary.

Even when there is an appreciable change in bulk density between two contacting fluids, an S-wave reflection tends to be weak compared to the bold nature of its companion P-wave reflection from that same fluid-contact boundary.

Second, when it is critical to identify and monitor fluid-contact boundaries, both P-wave and S-wave seismic data should be utilized.

S-wave data are needed to identify which P-wave reflections are associated with fluid boundaries; P-wave data are needed to map and quantify calendar-time changes in any reflection event that has been identified as a fluid-contact boundary.

These well-established seismic principles are becoming more important now that there is increasing emphasis to sequester CO2 in brine-filled reservoirs.

Comments (0)


Geophysical Corner

Geophysical Corner - Satinder Chopra
Satinder Chopra, award-winning chief geophysicist (reservoir), at Arcis Seismic Solutions, Calgary, Canada, and a past AAPG-SEG Joint Distinguished Lecturer began serving as the editor of the Geophysical Corner column in 2012.

Geophysical Corner

The Geophysical Corner is a regular column in the EXPLORER that features geophysical case studies, techniques and application to the petroleum industry.


Image Gallery

See Also: Book

Memoir 94 – Thrust fault-related folds form numerous important hydrocarbon traps in sub-aerial and deep-water fold and thrust belts as well as in inversion fold and thrust belts. This memoir presents 16 papers on new advances in the analysis and understanding of thrust-related fold systems including detachment folds, thrust-fault propagation folds, wedge thrust-related fold systems, and basement-involved fold systems.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/book-m94-thrust-fault-related-folding-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3973 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

Sequence stratigraphy and coal cycles based on accommodation trends were investigated in the coal-bearing Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group in the Lloydminster heavy oil field, eastern Alberta. The study area is in a low accommodation setting on the cratonic margin of the Western Canada sedimentary basin. Geophysical log correlation of coal seams, shoreface facies, and the identification of incised valleys has produced a sequence-stratigraphic framework for petrographic data from 3 cored and 115 geophysical-logged wells. Maceral analysis, telovitrinite reflectance, and fluorescence measurements were taken from a total of 206 samples. Three terrestrial depositional environments were interpreted from the petrographic data: ombrotrophic mire coal, limnotelmatic mire coal, and carbonaceous shale horizons. Accommodation-based coal (wetting- and drying-upward) cycles represent trends in depositional environment shifts, and these cycles were used to investigate the development and preservation of the coal seams across the study area.

The low-accommodation strata are characterized by a high-frequency occurrence of significant surfaces, coal seam splitting, paleosol, and incised-valley development. Three sequence boundary unconformities are identified in only 20 m (66 ft) of strata. Coal cycle correlations illustrate that each coal seam in this study area was not produced by a single peat-accumulation episode but as an amalgamation of a series of depositional events. Complex relations between the Cummings and Lloydminster coal seams are caused by the lateral fragmentation of strata resulting from the removal of sediment by subaerial erosion or periods of nondeposition. Syndepositional faulting of the underlying basement rock changed local accommodation space and increased the complexity of the coal cycle development.

This study represents a low-accommodation example from a spectrum of stratigraphic studies that have been used to establish a terrestrial sequence-stratigraphic model. The frequency of changes in coal seam quality is an important control on methane distribution within coalbed methane reservoirs and resource calculations in coal mining. A depositional model based on the coal cycle correlations, as shown by this study, can provide coal quality prediction for coalbed methane exploration, reservoir completions, and coal mining.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/accommodation-based-coal-cycles-and-significant.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5686 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3968 CD-DVD
Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4465 CD-DVD
Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4579 CD-DVD