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.

VIEW COLUMN ARCHIVES

Image Gallery

See Also: Bulletin Article

Gas generation is a commonly hypothesized mechanism for the development of high-magnitude overpressure. However, overpressures developed by gas generation have been rarely measured in situ, with the main evidence for such overpressures coming from source rock microfractures, the physical necessity of overpressures for primary migration, laboratory experiments, and numerical modeling. Indeed, previous in-situ observations suggest that gas generation only creates highly localized overpressures within rich source rocks. Pore-fluid pressure data and sonic velocity–vertical effective stress plots from 30 wells reveal that overpressures in the northern Malay Basin are primarily generated by fluid expansion and are located basinwide within the Miocene 2A, 2B, and 2C source rock formations. The overpressures are predominantly associated with gas sampled in more than 83% of overpressure measurements and have a sonic-density response consistent with gas generation. The association of fluid expansion overpressures with gas, combined with the sonic-density response to overpressure and a regional geology that precludes other overpressuring mechanisms, provides convincing in-situ evidence for basinwide gas generation overpressuring. Overpressure magnitude analysis suggests that gas generation accounts for approximately one-half to two-thirds of the measured excess pore pressure in the region, with the remainder being generated by coincident disequilibrium compaction. Thus, the data herein suggest that gas generation, if acting in isolation, is producing a maximum pressure gradient of 15.3 MPa/km (0.676 psi/ft) and not lithostatic magnitudes as commonly hypothesized. The gas generation overpressures in this article are not associated with a significant porosity anomaly and represent a major drilling hazard, with traditional pore-pressure prediction techniques underestimating pressure gradients by 2.3 plusmn 1.5 MPa/km (0.1 plusmn 0.07 psi/ft).
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/evidence-for-overpressure-generation.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3717 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 4454 CD-DVD

See Also: DL Abstract

The enhanced production of unconventional hydrocarbons, the mitigation of biosourcing, and the advancement of carbon capture and storage, now combine to create significant financial and technical challenges to the global oil and gas industry.  Emerging and especially promising Geobiology approaches to these issues include utilization of the physical and biogeochemical activity of microorganisms that inhabit deeply buried hydrocarbon reservoirs.

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 11396 DL Abstract

See Also: Field Seminar

This trip will focus on defining the Niobrara formation from the outcrop scale to the well bore, and discuss the key parameters that have made this play work, both from a geologic and a reservoir standpoint. Furthermore, we will describe how Noble Energy has helped to lead the industry in Northern Colorado to safely, responsibly and efficiently develop this huge resource. We will visit both Niobrara outcrops and Noble Energy production facilities to illustrate our current subsurface understanding and best practices.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/ace2015-ft-11-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 14702 Field Seminar

See Also: Short Course

This workshop combines interactive lectures and exercises addressing the expression of depositional sequences in mudstones on seismic, well-log, core and outcrop data. Examples include in the course will include the Marcellus Shale, New Albany Shale, Barnett Shale, Shublik Formation, Kimmeridge Clay Formation, Kingak Formation, Hue Shale, Mowry Shale, and Monterey Formation.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/ace2015-sc04-mudstones-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 14555 Short Course