Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Velocity, Porosity, Clay Relations

123

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

What Controls Amplitude over this North Sea Turbidite?

Courtesy Per Avseth

Lithology, porosity, pore fluids, stresses but also sedimentation and diagenesis

124

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Life Story of a Clastic Sediment

Burial

Deposition

L.1

Velocity-porosity relationship in clastic sediments and rocks. Data from Hamilton (1956), Yin et al. (1988), Han et al. (1986). Compiled by Marion, D., 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univ.

125

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Critical Porosity
We observe that the clastic sand-clay system is divided into two distinct domains, separated by a critical porosity c. Above c, the sediments are suspensions. Below c , the sediments are load-bearing.

L.1

126

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Critical Porosity
Traditionally, bounding methods have been considered not very useful for quantitative predictions of velocity-porosity relationships, because the upper and lower bounds are so far apart when the end members are pure quartz and pure water. However, the separation into two domains above and below the critical porosity helps us to recognize that the bounds are in fact useful for predictive purposes. > c, fluid-bearing suspensions. In the suspension domain the velocities are described quite well by the Reuss average (iso-stress condition). < c, load-bearing frame. Here the situation appears to be more complicated. But again, there is a relatively simple pattern, and we will see that the Voigt average is useful.

127

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.2

The first thing to note is that the clean (clay free) materials fall along a remarkably narrow trend. These range from very low porosity, highly consolidated sandstones, to high porosity loose sand. (Data from Yin et al., 1988; Han et al., 1986. Compiled and plotted by Marion, D., 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
128

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Critical Mush

L.3

Amos Nur discovered that this narrow trend can be described accurately with a modified Voigt bound. Recall that bounds give a way to use the properties of the pure end members to predict the properties in between. The trick here is to recognize that the critical porosity marks the limits of the domain of consolidated sediments, and redefine the right end member to be the suspension of solids and fluids at the critical porosity.
129

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

The Modified Voigt Bound

Velocity in rocks

VP =

= (1 ) mineral + fluid
The usual Voigt estimate of modulus

M = (1 ) Mmineral + M fluid
Modified Voigt estimate of modulus

M = (1 ) Mmineral + M critical "mush"

= c
0 c
130

0 1

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Example of critical porosity behavior in sandstones.

L.4

131

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Data from Anselmetti and Eberli, 1997, in Carbonate Seismology, SEG.

132

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

133

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Chalks

L.5

134

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.6

135

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Hans Laboratory Study on Effects of Porosity and Clay in Sandstones

L.7

Han (1986, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University) studied the effects of porosity and clay on 80 sandstone samples represented here.
136

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Hans Study on Phi-Clay in Sandstones

Clean sand line

Vp = (5.6-2.1C) - 6.9
C=.05 .15 .35 .25

Vs = (3.5-1.9C) - 4.9
.35 C=.05 .15 .25

Han (1986) found the usual result: velocities tend to decrease with porosity, but with a lot of scatter about the regressions when clay is present (water saturated).
137

L.8

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Hans Relations (40 MPa)

Clean sandstones (10 samples)
VP = 6.08 8.06 VS = 4.06 6.28

R = 0.99 2.1% R = 0.99 1.6%

Clay-bearing sandstones (70 samples) Ignoring the clay dry water saturated
VP = 5.02 5.63 VS = 3.03 3.78 R = 0.80 7.0% R = 0.70 10%

Including a clay term

VP = 5.59 6.93 2.18C VS = 3.52 4.91 1.89C
VP = 5.41 6.35 2.87C VS = 3.57 4.57 1.83C R = 0.98 2.1% R = 0.95 4.3%

R = 0.90 R = 0.90

R = correlation coefficient; % = RMS

138

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Hans empirical relations between ultrasonic Vp and Vs in km/s with porosity and clay volume fractions. Clean Sandstones (determined from 10 samples) Water saturated 40 MPa Vp = 6.08 - 8.06 Shaly Sandstones (determined from 70 samples) Water saturated 40 MPa Vp = 5.59 - 6.93 - 2.18C 30 MPa Vp = 5.55 - 6.96 - 2.18C 20 MPa Vp = 5.49 - 6.94 - 2.17C 10 MPa Vp = 5.39 - 7.08 - 2.13C 5 MPa Vp = 5.26 - 7.08 - 2.02C Dry 40 MPa Vp = 5.41 - 6.35 - 2.87C Vs = 3.52 - 4.91 - 1.89C Vs = 3.47 - 4.84 - 1.87C Vs = 3.39 - 4.73 - 1.81C Vs = 3.29 - 4.73 - 1.74C Vs = 3.16 - 4.77 - 1.64C Vs = 3.57 - 4.57 - 1.83C

Vs = 4.06 - 6.28

L.9

Hans water-saturated ultrasonic velocity data at 40 MPa compared with his empirical relations evaluated at four different clay fractions.
139

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.12

The critical porosity, modified Voigt bound incorporating Han's clay correction.
140

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Unconsolidated mixes of sand and kaolinite

Sand, shaley sand

Shale, sandy shale

Mixtures have a minimum in porosity that is less than either the sand or clay

observed

modeled

L.13

Porosity vs. clay weight fraction at various confining pressures. From Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Data are from Yin, et al., 1988.
141

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Unconsolidated mixes of sand and kaolinite

Sand, shaley sand

Shale, sandy shale

Mixtures have a maximum in velocity

observed

modeled

L.14

Velocity vs. clay weight fraction at various confining pressures. From Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Data are from Yin, et al., 1988.
142

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dispersed sand-clay mixes tend to form V-shape in various domains

L.15

Influence of clay content on velocity-porosity relationship at a constant confining pressure (50 MPa). Distinct trends for shaly sand and for shale are schematically superposed on experimental data on sand-clay mixture. From Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Data are from Yin, et al., 1988, and Han, 1986.

143

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands Amoco's Well in clay the Hastings Field (On-Shore Gulf Coast) Dispersed V-shape in nphi-rhob

domain
Density vs. Neutron Porosity Poorly Consolidated Shaly Sands

2.00 2.10 2.20 Laminar Clay Model

rhob (g/cm 3)

2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
L.18

Dispersed Clay Model Marion Model

Increasing Clay Content

nphi

144

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Example for fluvial sands

Statoil B, Brine Substituted
6000 5500 5000 4500 4000

Each color represents a different fining-upward sequence

Vp

3500 3000 2500

sandy leg

shaley leg
2000 1500 1000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Porosity

145

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Density Porosity vs. Neutron Porosity in Shaly Sands

0.5

To
0.4

nt i po r e at w
wa te rp oi nt

0.3

D
0.2

0.1 Q Q ua rtz Po in t

Cl

n ea

e at

rS

d an

B Sh o 0.1 0.2

Cl

Dr y

Cl ay

0.3

po in t

Sh

0.4

0.5
L.19

To

Schlumberger, 1989
146

To

G as Sand

Sd

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Yins laboratory measurements on sand-clay mixtures

L.20

147

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Yins laboratory measurements on sand-clay mixtures

Permeability (Gas) vs. Porosity
10
4

10 3

0% 5%

Permeability (mD)

10 2 20% 10 1 25%

10% 15% 40% 50% 85% 0 MPa 30% 65% 100%

10

10

-1

50 MPa 10 - 2 0 0.1

20 MPa 30 MPa 40 MPa 0.2 0.3

10 MPa

% clay content by weight 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

L.21

Porosity

148

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.22

Permeability vs. porosity data in Gulf-Coast sandstones reflect the primary influence of clay content on both permeability and porosity. Kozeny-Carman relations for pure sand and pure shale are also shown (dashed lines) to illustrate the effect of porosity on permeability. From Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

149

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Yin's laboratory measurements on sand-clay mixtures.

L.23

150

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands Velocity-porosity trend is non-unique and is determined by the geologic process that controls porosity Varied Velocity-Porosity Trends 6000 Gulf of Mexico (Han)

5000 4000

Cementing Trend

Oseberg

Vp

3000 2000 1000 0

Troll

0.1

0.2 0.3 Porosity

0.4

0.5

L.36

Hans large data set spans a large range of depths and clearly shows the steep cementing trend, which would be favorable for mapping velocity (or impedance) to porosity. Other data sets from the Troll and Oseberg indicate much shallower trends.

151

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Cementing vs. Sorting Trends 6000 5000 4000 Oseberg Gulf of Mexico (Han)
Cementing Trend

Vp

3000 2000 1000 0

Sorting Trend

Troll

Reuss Bound (Deposition)

0.1

0.2 0.3 Porosity

0.4

0.5

The slope of the velocity-porosity trend is controlled by the geologic process that controls variations in porosity. If porosity is controlled by diagenesis and cementing, we expect a steep slope described well by a modified upper bound. If it is controlled by sorting and clay content (depositional) then we expect a shallower trend described well by a modified lower bound.

152

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Generalized Sandstone Model

6 5 4
Vp

Cementing vs. Sorting Trends

Mineral point

3 2 1 0 Suspension Line (Reuss Bound) sorting trend

New Deposition

clean cementing trend

0.1

0.2 0.3 Porosity

0.4

0.5

L.36

153

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

North Sea Clean sands 6 5 4

Vp

shallow oil sand deeper water sand

increasing cement poor sorting

3 2 1
all zones converted to brine only clean sand, Vsh <.05

Suspension Line

0.05

0.1

0.15 0.2 0.25 Total Porosity

0.3

0.35
L.37

0.4

154

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

North Sea Clean vs. Shaly Sands 6 5 4

Vp

2508-2545 m, vsh<.05 2508-2545 m, Vsh>.3 2701-2750 m, vsh<.05 2701-2750 m, Vsh>.3 increasing cement more clay Suspension Line

3 2 1

poor sorting

all zones converted to brine

0.05

0.1

0.15 0.2 0.25 Total Porosity

0.3

0.35

0.4

L.37

155

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Decrease porosity 5% by Cementing

L39
6000

Data Before (blue) and After (red) Cementing

6000

Data Before (blue) and After (red) Cementing

5000

5000

4000

4000

Vp

3000

Cementing Trend

Vp

3000

Cementing Trend
2000
2000

1000

1000

0.1

0.2

Porosity

0.3

0.4

0.5

500

1000

1500

2000

Vs

2500

3000

3500

4000

156

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Decrease porosity 5% by Sorting

6000

Data Before (blue) and After (red) Sorting

6000

Data Before (blue) and After (red) Sorting

L39

5000

5000

4000

4000

Vp

3000

Vp

Sorting Trend

3000

Sorting Trend
2000

2000

1000

1000

0.1

0.2

Porosity

0.3

0.4

0.5

500

1000

1500

2000

Vs

2500

3000

3500

4000

157

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand, Shale Depth Trends

What about intermediate facies?

3000

P Velocity

Clean Sand Compaction

2000

Shale Compaction

20

40

60

Porosity (%)
L.37

158

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand-Clay V Mixing Law

Statoil B, Brine Substituted
6000 5500 5000 4500 4000

Vp

3500 3000 2500

sandy leg

Sand point
shaley leg

2000 1500 1000 0

Sand point
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Porosity

159

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand, Shale Depth Trends

3000

P Velocity

Shaley Sand

50 MPa
Shale Clean Sand

2000

5 MPa 0 MPa
20 40 60

Porosity (%)

160

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Depth Progression in a Fluvial Sequence

Shaly Sands
Clean SST

Clayey Shale

161

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

GR Reservoir Diagenetic quality Trend Diagenetic Trend

Vp Vp

Depositional Depositional Trend Trend

Porosity Porosity ( Density)

Florez, Stanford University, 2002

162

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkins Cement Model

Jack Dvorkin introduced a cement model that predicts the bulk and shear moduli of dry sand when cement is deposited at grain contacts. The model assumes that the cement is elastic and its properties may differ from those of the grains. It assumes that the starting framework of cemented sand is a dense random pack of identical spherical grains with porosity 0 0.36 , and the average number of contacts per grain C = 9. Adding cement reduces porosity and increases the effective elastic moduli of the aggregate. The effective dry-rock bulk and shear moduli are (Dvorkin and Nur, 1996)

K eff

where

) 1 = C (1 0 ) M c Sn 6
2 M c = cVPc

eff

) 3 3 = K eff + C (1 0 )c S 5 20

2 C = cVSc

c is the cement's density; and V and V are its P- and SPc Sc wave velocities. Parameters S n and S are proportional to

the normal and shear stiffness, respectively, of a cemented two-grain combination. They depend on the amount of the contact cement and on the properties of the cement and the grains. (see next page)
A
Contact cement Grain

B
R a

C
a

Non-contact cement

Scheme 1

Scheme 2

163

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkins Cement Model

) Sn = An ( n ) 2 + Bn ( n ) + Cn ( n )
An ( n ) = 0.024153 n
Bn ( n ) = 0.20405 n
1.3646

Constants in the cement model:

,

0.89008

Cn ( n ) = 0.00024649 n

1.9864

n = 2c (1 )(1 c ) /[(1 2 c )] ) S = A ( , ) 2 + B ( , ) + C ( , ),
A ( , ) = 10 (2.26 + 2.07 + 2.3)
B ( , ) = (0.0573 2 + 0.0937 + 0.202)
2

0.079
2

+ 0.1754 1.342

0.0274

+ 0.0529 0.8765
2

,
;

C ( , ) = 104 (9.654 + 4.945 + 3.1)

0.01867

+ 0.4011 1.8186

= c /( )
where and are the shear modulus and the Poisson's ratio of the grains, respectively; c and c are the shear modulus and the Poisson's ratio of the cement; a is the radius of the contact cement layer; R is the grain radius.

= a/R

164

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
A
Grain

B
R a

C
a

Dvorkins cement model

Contact cement

Non-contact cement

Scheme 1

Scheme 2

The amount of the contact cement can be expressed through the ratio of the radius of the cement layer a to the grain radius R:
= a/R

The radius of the contact cement layer a is not necessarily directly related to the total amount of cement: part of the cement may be deposited away from the intergranular contacts. However by assuming that porosity reduction in sands is due to cementation only, and by adopting certain schemes of cement deposition we can relate parameter to the current porosity of cemented sand . For example, we can use Scheme 1 (see figure above) where all cement is deposited at grain contacts: 0.25 0.25 0 S 0 =2 =2 3C 1 0 3C 1 0 or we can use Scheme 2 where cement is evenly deposited on the grain surface: 2 0 0.5 2S 0 0.5 = = 3 1 0 3 1 0 In these formulas S is the cement saturation of the pore space - the fraction of the pore space occupied by cement.

165

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkins Cement Model

If the cement's properties are identical to those of the grains, the cementation theory gives results which are very close to those of the Digby model. The cementation theory allows one to diagnose a rock by determining what type of cement prevails. For example, it helps distinguish between quartz and clay cement. Generally, Vp predictions are much better than Vs predictions.

Predictions of Vp and Vs using the Scheme 2 model for quartz and clay cement, compared with data from quartz and clay cemented rocks from the North Sea.

166

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand models can be used to Diagnose sands

167

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkins Uncemented Sand Model

This model predicts the bulk and shear moduli of dry sand when cement is deposited away from grain contacts. The model assumes that the starting framework of uncemented sand is a dense random pack of identical spherical grains with porosity 0 = 0.36 , and the average number of contacts per grain C = 9. The contact Hertz-Mindlin theory gives the following expressions for the effective bulk ( K HM ) and shear ( G HM ) moduli of a dry dense random pack of identical spherical grains subject to a hydrostatic pressure P:
C 2 1 0 2 G 2 K HM = 2 P 2 18 1 G HM = 5 4 5 2
1/3

3C 2 1 0 2 G 2 P 2 2 2 1

1/3

where is the grain Poisson's ratio and G is the grain shear modulus.

168

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands In order to find the effective moduli at a different porosity, a heuristic modified Hashin-Strikman lower bound is used: / 0 1 / 0 1 4 K eff = + G HM 4 4 3 K HM + G HM K + G HM 3 3 / 0 G eff = G 9K HM + 8G HM G HM + HM 6 K HM + 2G HM

Dvorkins Uncemented Sand Model

1 / 0 + G 9K HM + 8G HM G + HM 6 K HM + 2G HM G 9K HM + 8G HM HM 6 K HM + 2G HM

Illustration of the modified lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound for various effective pressures. The pressure dependence follows from the Hertz-Mindlin theory incorporated into the right end member.
169

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkins Uncemented Sand Model

This model connects two end members: one has zero porosity and the modulus of the solid phase and the other has high porosity and a pressure-dependent modulus as given by the Hertz-Mindlin theory. This contact theory allows one to describe the noticeable pressure dependence normally observed in sands. The high-porosity end member does not necessarily have to be calculated from the Hertz-Mindlin theory. It can be measured experimentally on high-porosity sands from a given reservoir. Then, to estimate the moduli of sands of different porosities, the modified Hashin-Strikman lower bound formulas can be used where KHM and GHM are set at the measured values. This method provides accurate estimates for velocities in uncemented sands. In the figures below the curves are from the theory.

Prediction of Vp and Vs using the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound, compared with measured velocities from unconsolidated North Sea samples.
170

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

This method can also be used for estimating velocities in sands of porosities exceeding 0.36.

171

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

North Sea Example

Well #1
2.1 1.7

Well #2

Depth (km)

2.2

Depth (km)

1.8

2.3

1.9 Limestone

Marl

3 Vp (km/s)

40

80 GR

120

3 4 Vp (km/s)

40

80 GR

120

Constant Cement Fraction (2%) Line

3.5

Contact Cement Line

Vp (km/s)

Well #2

2.5

Unconsolidated Line
0.25 0.3 Porosity

Well #1

0.35

0.4

Study by Per Avseth, along with J. Dvorkin, G. Mavko, and J. Rykkje

172

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sorting Analysis of Thin-Sections

0.4mm

0.4mm

0.4mm

0.4mm

173

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Thin-Section and SEM Analyses

Unconsolidated (Facies IIb)

Well #1 Uncemented

Cemented (Facies IIa)

Well #2 Cemented

0.25 mm

0.25 mm

Back-scatter light
SEM back-scatter image: Well #2

Cathode lum. light

SEM cathode-luminescent image: Well #2

0.1 mm

0.1 mm

Qz-cement rim

Qz-grain

174