PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and

The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition POSTER-JCS2005-169

AVO MODELING FOR HC EXPLORATION: A STUDY CASE
A. Avrino and Munji S. CNOOC SES Ltd.

ABSTRACT The interpretation of poststack seismic describes the subsurface lithology boundary which sometimes difficult to recognize individual lithology unit because of limitation in the vertical resolution seismic response. Forward AVO (Amplitude Versus Offset) modeling combine with FRM (Fluid Replacement Modeling) was designed to recognize tuning thickness and fluid effect in seismic response effectively which improve the prediction in reservoir characterization work. The objective of this study is to identify reservoir properties by applying AVO synthetic modeling from one well as reference. We used small set of 3D seismic data in “little e “ area. The geological model built from available well log data. Other fluid and petrophysical properties used from nearby field location. The AVO modeling analysis was done using 2 terms of Zoeppritz equation produce near offset (at 0 to 15 degree) and far offset (15 to 30 degree) data set. Further analysis implies that the fluid content was affect directly to amplitude response in this area. The AVO attribute was generated from the addition of incidence angle (A) and gradient (B) in scaled poisson ratio changes, gives better illumination in representation of fluid effect rather than in intercept normal incidence (A) term only. Finally the AVO attribute map show the distribution of possibility of hydrocarbon accumulation in the area. strain ratio under simple hydrostatic pressure, given by k= where, k

INTRODUCTION Hydrocarbon accumulation sometimes gives sensitive seismic amplitude response which useful to identify reservoir from seismic data. Sensitivity analysis of the seismic response and amplitude variation with offset was used to predict hydrocarbon accumulation. Furthermore, the application of AVO attribute analysis is mostly straightforward as hydrocarbon indicator estimator. However, fluid content conditions may be characterized by defining set of rock properties that exist for the possible lithologies within context of the play which can give bias to seismic response, but in some cases, AVO has provided good tool to identify hydrocarbon zones quickly (Fatti et al., 1994) Poisson’s ratio analysis method relies on Vp, Vs, and density differences. Castagna provides link between velocity and rock properties for pore fluid detection, through the bulk modulus k that is embedded in Vp. The bulk modulus is the stress-

∆P 1 = ∆V / V C

= bulk modulus

∆P = hydrostatic stress ∆V/V = volumetric strain or dilatation C = compressibility The AVO response is dependent on the properties of P-wave velocity (Vp), S-wave velocity (Vs), and density (ρ) in a porous reservoir rock. Overall, rock properties are determined by matrix type, porosity, and fluid type. Gassmann formulation for compressional and shear velocities of porous, fluid saturated media is not so straightforward. Gassmann equation determines mudrock line formation acoustic properties using the rigidity coefficient. In this case, Castagna et al. (1985) derived a much simpler empirical relationship 919

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

between P-wave and S-wave velocity, which can be written as, Vp = 1.16Vs + 1360m/s For a constant Poisson’s ratio, the intercept is zero and the Vp, Vs relationship written as, Vp =

2σ − 2 Vs 2σ − 1

Our study was using Castagna equation to determine mudrock line. Successful exploration requires the integration of relevant geological and geophysical techniques both conventional and unconventional. This paper will show the conventional 1D synthetic modeling combined with AVO attribute analysis to identify reservoir characterization in delineating hydrocarbon accumulation. Combine reservoir properties from well log data with AVO attributes, and increasing reservoir resolution in AVO result has been achieved to derive a better mapdefinition. Therefore, we are success to minimize exploration risk. MODELLING 1D Modeling As starting point, we work on well log data; generate crossplot between P-wave log and Swave log. P-wave velocity information is typically obtained from well logs whereas S-wave velocity is derived from Castagna equation to predict the mudrock line. Vs and Vp are shear and compressional velocities respectively, and ρ is density. Shear modulus is often independent of pore fluid content. Focus historically has then been on bulk modulus as a hydrocarbon indicator. The 1D modeling analysis shows clear separation between the porous sandstone (with HC) and tight sandstone (FIGURE 1). Geological model was created from both of conditions. Tabel-1 shows rock properties were calculated according to a reformulation of the well-known relationship introduced by Gassmann. 1D-modeling result is used to justify AVO modeling result in the later step. AVO Synthetics Modeling The forward AVO modeling method applied to well data is based on straightforward process of calculating synthetic seismogram.

Mathematically, it is the convolution between wavelet and coefficient reflection to create synthetic seismogram. This synthetic is used to build geological model. We use an extracted zero phased wavelet from small set of 3D seismic data (FIGURE 2). The wavelet has dominant frequency about 12 Hz. Figure 3 shows that synthetic describes good character match to the real data with coefficient correlation 0.77. The final step in the synthetic modeling process is to have different cases substitutions in the reservoir section and predict the Zoeppritz response to the changed reservoir conditions. In this case, we want to investigate AVO curve response whether it is water-wet sand or oil sand. The AVO modeling was created using 2 terms of Zoeppritz equation produced from near and far offset with hydrocarbon and wet cases. We used number of offset 40 for far offset and 10 for near offset (FIGURE 4a, FIGURE 4b). Well log parameter of geological model refers to existing Aryani A-01 well log data specifically in the pay zone. AVO curves response from generated model shows relative amplitude change from top to base of the oil sand reservoir. In fact in general, the two-term approximation is only valid to 5000m maximum offset. However, it depends on depth of the target zone. In this case the target is relatively shallow approximately 4000ft depth. Reservoir fluid acoustic properties are shown in Table 1. Rutherford and Williams (1989) classify gas sand into four classes (FIGURE 5). This classification is based only on the normal-incidence reflection coefficient (A) and the gradient (B). Petrophysical assumptions for sand-shale intervals are built based on linear background trends for limited depth ranges on the AVO intercept (A) and gradient (B) crossplot. Typically, the crossplot of these AVO attributes can be used to quickly identify anomalous areas of the seismic data. In our case, the AVO curve response fall into class I AVO anomaly (high acoustic impedance contrast) which the sand have positive normalincidence reflection coefficient at top of the sand and negative normal-incidence reflection coefficient at the base. They fall in quadrant IV. 920

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

Model response shows decrease in amplitude value (dimming effects) with increasing offset. CDP gathers from the reference well in Figure 6 shows two adjacent dim effect also. Tuning Model Wedge model was generated to analyze tuning thickness effect. The model was created from 11 offsets synthetic with thickness varies from 0 to 50 ft thick. We use both oil sand reservoir and wet cases in the model. Aryani A-01 well is the reference well for oil case reservoir which encounter 10ft oil pay. Wedge model from far offset describes tuning thickness at 20 ft (FIGURE 7). Therefore, based on theory of tuning thickness, we cannot resolve geological boundary because formation thickness is below tuning thickness (20 ft). However, we present the model in scaled poisson ratio changes to make easier interpretation. Poisson ratio of the wedge model indicate that limit of visibility is extended to almost 10ft which means we can expect to have clear boundary from a 10ft thick layer. Proposed well is targeted at conglomeratic sandstone reservoir, which expected to encounter 10-15 ft pay zone. Therefore, we are expecting to see the anomaly in the limit of visibility, which almost similar to the current Aryani A-01 well if the proposed location is oil sand reservoir. AVO Attribute Volume Calculating full amplitude response as function of angle incidence from reflectivity series provided by well logs performs the AVO modeling. Gradient and intercept volume were extracted with the intention of extraction pore fluid information. Shuey equation relates reflectivity at a given angle as function of normal incidence reflectivity (A) and gradient (B) such that R ( θ ) = A+B sin2 θ The gradient volume shows the rate change of amplitudes with incidence angle, while the intercept volume shows the zero-offset respond. Common simplification of Zoeppritz equation is good for incidence angle less than 30 degrees (Shuey, 1985).

AVO attributes interpretation is derived from Rutherford and William’s chart according to their normal incidence reflectivity and gradient. In this case, we try to create AVO attribute volume in Poisson ratio scaled. The present of hydrocarbon in reservoir sands will cause decreasing Poisson’s ratio and consequently increasing slope of the best-fit trend. The amplitude response at interface varies according to the angle of incidence, and is strongly related to contrast in Poisson’s ratio across the interface. It is reasonable, to use poisson ratio scaled on AVO attribute interpretation, which clearly recognize anomalous effect directly because of hydrocarbon present. AVO modeling analysis was done using Zoeppritz equation, which produces near offset (0-15 degree) and far offset (15-30 degree). The AVO attribute volume generated from the addition of incidence angle A and gradient B (A+B) in scaled poisson ratio changes. Before we create AVO attribute volume, we perform gradient analysis to determine the best parameter on proposed well location. The analysis shows good correlation (around 0.7) for both linear and robust calculation (FIGURE 8). We create slices from AVO attribute volume above basement horizon that expected to be able to see AVO anomaly (FIGURE 9). DICUSSION Primary reservoir objective at proposed well location is top of porous zone so called Lower Zelda member. AVO attribute map generated from 10ms window above basement was expected to capture the top of porous zone. The AVO amplitude envelope attribute map shows that porous oil sand has amplitude value ranging from 7000 to 11000. Tight reservoir zone has amplitude value less than 7000 (FIGURE 10a). The AVO attribute section across Aryani A01 also shows porous zone on the Lower Zelda member, which confirmed by well-log data of 10 ft oil pay. This reservoir lies 20 ft above basement (around 10ms above basement). As reference, the Aryani A-01 establishes good correlation between the AVO attribute and rock properties. Unfortunately, map slice 10ms above basement on 921

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

proposed well location is not showing expected AVO anomaly. The AVO RMS amplitude attribute value greater than 3000 indicates porous oil sand reservoir on Aryani A-01 well location, which represented by yellow color (FIGURE 10b). At proposed well location, the RMS AVO attribute shows no hydrocarbon indication. The AVO section from amplitude envelope and scaled poisson ratio changes attribute also shows no hydrocarbon indication at the proposed well location. Overall, the proposed location on AVO attribute maps indicates tight sand specifically on top of porous-lower Zelda member. In other words, AVO attribute map suggest absent fluid content in the proposed area therefore it lies on risk zone. However, on the northwest part of study area, AVO anomaly looks similar to the Aryani A-01 location, which expected to have positive result on hydrocarbon accumulation distribution similar to Aryani A-01. Suggestion was made to change proposed well location into new location. Beside that, interpreter should also consider structural configuration and geological model. CONCLUSION Our AVO modelings establish good relationship between fluid factor and seismic response from existing oil well. AVO modeling method has increase lithology/fluid discrimination and gives higher vertical resolution and visibility limit. Using integrated geological and petrophysical data with proper geophysical approach, we effectively demonstrate reservoir characterization workflow for HC exploration. As the result, AVO RMS and

amplitude envelope attribute maps determine distribution of hydrocarbon accumulation from AVO anomalous. Therefore, AVO attribute map useful to reduce risk zone of a proposed well and deliver higher probability geological success. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Nusatriyo Guritno, Wynn Gajkowski, and Dwi Mandhiri for their advice, support, and discussion. We also thanks to CNOOC Management, BPMIGAS, and CNOOC Partners for give permission to publish this paper. REFERENCES Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Eastwood, R.L., 1985, Relationship between compressional and shear-wave velocities and clastic silicate rocks: Geophysics, 50, 551-570. Fatti, J.L., Smith, G.C., Vail, P.J., and Levitt, P.R., 1994, Detection of gas in sandstone reservoir using AVO analysis: A 3-D case history using geostack technique: Geophysics, 59, 13621376 Furniss, A., 2001, Reservoir characterization through integrated AVO, AI, and EI Inversion. Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum Association 2001, Vol-1, 53-69. Rutherford, S.R., and Williams, R.H., 1989, Amplitude versus offset variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54, 680-688. Shuey, R.T., 1985, A Simplification of the Zoeppritz equations: Geophysics, 50, 609-614.

922

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

Lithology Porous Sand (HC) Tight Sand Wet Sand from near field

Vp ( s/ft) 74 89 112

Vs ( s/ft) 129 171 254

RHOB (gr/cc) Poisson Ratio 2.42 0.24 2.34 0.32 2.33 0.37

TABLE 1: Rock properties of Aryani A-01 well.

Porous sand

Pay Zone

Tight sand

FIGURE 1: Crossplot of Vp versus Vs is justifying the AVO modeling result that separates porous sandstone (HC) and tight sandstone reservoir.

FIGURE 2: Statistical wavelet using 1100-1600ms time window, 2ms sample rate, 0 degree phase rotation, and constant phase. 923

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

10ft oil pay

FIGURE 3: Synthetic Seismogram compare to ELAN data.

50ft thickness

WE T AVO Response

HC WET HC

FIGURE 4a: AVO Modeling is created using Zoeppritz equation produced from far offset with the number of offset 40. The AVO curve response shows relative amplitude change from top to the base of oil sand reservoir. 924

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

20ft thickness

AVO Response

FIGURE 4b: AVO modeling generated from near offset with 20ft thickness is still resolve geological boundary from AVO effect.

FIGURE 5: AVO anomaly classification and AVO crossplot classifications (Furniss, 2001)

925

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

FIGURE 6: Two adjacent CDP gathers showing dimming effect on Aryani A-1 well location.

Thickness in ft

TOP
BOTTOM

FIGURE 7: Wedge Model generated from far offset describes tuning thickness at 20ft in poison ratio scaled changes to detect fluid content. 926

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

FIGURE 8: Gradient analysis determines the best parameter on proposed well location.

A
Aryani A01
Prop. Well

B

LOWER ZELDA

Oil show

10 ms

B
Prop.well

Target Zone

BASEMENT

A
Aryani A-01

FIGURE 9: Seismic section through Aryani A-01 and proposed well location 927

PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

X
Proposed location

Y

Lower Zelda

X
Prop. location

Y

Aryani A-01

Basement

FIGURE 10a: AVO Amplitude Envelope Attribute map 10ms above basement. Yellow color represents the distribution of possibility of HC accumulation. The northwest part shows AVO anomaly is expected to be porous oil sand reservoir.

A
Aryani A-01

B

Prop. location

Aryani A-01

A

B

FIGURE 10b: AVO RMS Amplitude Attribute map 10ms above basement. 928

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful