Rock Physics Templates

Hampson-Russell
July 18, 2014

Brian Russell

Introduction
 This document discusses the rock physics templates
(RPT), and how we have implemented the RPT
approach in the Hampson-Russell software release
HRS-9.
 The method is based on theory proposed by Dvorkin
and Nur (1996) and Ødegaard and Avseth (2003).
 We will show the equations and the concepts behind
the theory using graphical methods.
 We will also use log and inverted seismic data from the
Colony sand of central Alberta to illustrate these
methods.

2

The rock physics template (RPT)

Ødegaard and Avseth
(2003) proposed a
technique they called the
rock physics template
(RPT), based on theory
by Dvorkin and Nur
(1996), in which the fluid
and mineralogical content
of a reservoir could be
estimated on a crossplot
of VP/VS ratio against
acoustic impedance, as
shown here.
3

The Ødegaard/Avseth/Dvorkin/Nur RPT

 The Ødegaard and Avseth RPT
involves computing the VP/VS ratio
and P-Impedance of various rock
types based on their mineralogy,
porosity, fluid type, pressure and
grain contacts.

 This involves four steps:
 Computing the moduli of the dry rock frame for a given
porosity/pressure using the Hertz-Mindlin theory.
 Computing the moduli of the dry rock frame over a range of
porosities using the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound.
 Performing fluid substitution with the Gassmann equations.
 Computing the density, P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity for each
scenario and cross-plotting VP/VS ratio versus P-impedance. 4

 Using Dvorkin and Nur’s cemented sand model. 5 .  Using the Gregory-Pickett method (the Lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound).Computing the initial dry rock values The dry rock values can be computed in various ways:  Using Hertz-Mindlin contact theory.

An example of the number of contacts per grain. as we assume the rock consists of spherical grains. in a three-dimensional packing of spheres.  And the number of contacts per grain.  The porosity of the rock. n.  The pressure acting on the rock. 6 .Hertz-Mindlin contact theory Hertz-Mindlin contact theory requires a knowledge of:  The mineral bulk and shear moduli of the dry rock skeleton. is shown on the right.

 By adding the tangential force Normal (left) and tangential (right) shown on the right. 2009) modulus. 7 . Hertz computed the effective bulk modulus.Hertz-Mindlin contact theory  Using the normal compression of two identical grains shown on the left of this figure. Mindlin displacement in a two-particle computed the effective shear system.. (From Mavko et al.

µm = mineral shear modulus.Hertz-Mindlin contact theory  The final terms needed in Hertz-Mindlin (HM) contact theory are the shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the mineral grains. the pressure and the critical porosity. giving: 1 1  n 2 (1 − φc ) 2 µm2 3 4 − 4ν m  3n 2 (1 − φc ) 2 µm2 3 K HM =  P  .member. ν m = mineral Poisson' s ratio φc = high porosity end . and n = contacts per grain. K m = mineral bulk modulus. 18π (1 − ν m )  5( 2 − ν m )  2π (1 − ν m ) 2 2 2 2  where : P = confining pressure. µ HM =  P .  We get the mineral bulk modulus by noting: 3K m − 2 µ m 2 µ (1 + ν m ) νm = ⇒ Km = m 2(3K m + µm ) 3 − 6ν m 8 .

 When φ = φc we get the HM result: K dry = K HM and µdry = µ HM .  µ HM + z µm + z  6  K HM + 2 µ HM  and φ = porosity. z =  . 9 .  When φ = 0 we get the mineral value: K dry = K m and µdry = µm .The lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound  We extend the Hertz-Mindlin values of the frame moduli (for a given critical porosity) to all porosities by using the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound: −1  φ / φc 1 − φ / φc  4 K dry (φ ) =  +  − µ HM  K HM + ( 4 / 3) µ HM K m + ( 4 / 3) µ HM  3 −1  φ / φc 1 − φ / φc  µHM  9 K HM + 8µHM  µdry (φ ) =  +  − z.

how the cement is deposited and the number of contacts. and α =    3n (1 − φc )   3(1 − φc )  for cement deposited evenly on grain surface. 6  3  5 20 Sn and Sτ = scaling functions based on µcmt . ν grain and α . of cemented sand. 10 .25 0. 0.The cemented sand model Dvorkin and Nur’s model requires modulus values for the mineral and the cement. ν cmt . φ = por. and µeff = K eff + n(1 − φc ) µcmt Sτ . µ grain . the porosity of both components. This complex model for cemented sands computes the effective bulk and shear moduli by: 1  4  3 3 K eff = n(1 − φc ) K cmt + µcmt  Sn .5  φc − φ   2(φc − φ )  α = 2  for cement at grain contacts.

This method was modified by Russell (2013) to perform the same computation for the shear modulus. proposed by Hilterman (1983). 11 . From the pore space stiffness.The Modified Gregory-Pickett Method for Moduli The Gregory-Pickett method is a simpler method for the moduli. the dry rock bulk modulus can be estimated for a range of porosities.  In this method. φ = porosity. the pore space stiffness is computed from: 1 1 φ = + Kdry Km Kφ Where Kdry = dry rock bulk modulus. Km = mineral bulk modulus and Kφ = pore space stiffness. the dry rock bulk modulus is estimated at a known porosity by assuming a dry rock Poisson’s ratio. and gives the correct value in the mineral case.  Next.

We first compute the modulus at calibrated porosity φcal. or shear. µ) as a function of porosity. We then compute it at a new modulus Mnew. 12 . Mm is the mineral modulus. K.The Modified Gregory-Pickett Method for Moduli The Gregory-Pickett method assumes a known dry rock Poisson’s ratio at a given porosity This figure shows the dry modulus Mdry (either bulk.

method. The advantage of the modified Gregory-Pickett method is that the starting moduli values are calibrated from the logs.method is that pressure and porosity are accounted for. If φcal is the same as in the HS. this is equivalent to the Reuss bound.The Modified Gregory-Pickett Method This method is used in our AVO modelling code. The advantage of the HM/HS. 13 .

the mineral and the pore space.The Gassmann equation  By considering the pressure effects on samples of a dry and saturated rock. P = pressure. there are three different volumes to consider: the volume of the bulk rock. K  V  dP  In the above equation. there are two fundamental types of pressure: confining pressure.  The compressibility of the rock. 14 . divided by the volume: 1  1  dV C = = −  . PP. C. and pore pressure. PC. Mavko and Mukerji (1995) succinctly show how the Gassmann equation can be derived.  Also. is the change of the volume of the rock with respect to pressure. which is the inverse of the bulk modulus K. where : V = volume.

and in C the mineral and saturated pore.The Gassmann equation Utilizing these concepts. 15 . we can build three simple models of the rock volume. we compress the mineral. in B we compress the mineral and dry pore. as shown here (Mavko and Mukerji. 1995): In A.

The Gassmann equation  Combining cases A and B (mineral and dry) gives: 1 1 φ = + .  Combining cases A and C (mineral and saturated) gives: 1 1 φ = + ~ . 16 . where : K sat K m Kφ ~ Km K f K sat = saturated rock bulk modulus. and K f = fluid bulk modulus. where : K dry K min Kφ K dry = dry rock bulk modulus. Kφ = Kφ + Km − K f is the saturated pore space stiffness. and φ = porosity. K m = mineral bulk modulus. Kφ = dry pore space stiffness.

we simply re-arrange the equation to give: −1  1  K sat (φnew . S )   new new w _ new  17 . HM and HS.The Gassmann equation  Combining these equations gives the Gassmann equation. SW ) K m − K sat K m − K dry φ ( K m − K f )  The fluid bulk modulus is computed with the Ruess average (normal case) or the Voigt average (patchy saturation): −1  Sw 1 − Sw  Reuss : K f =  +  . S w _ new ) = K m 1 +   dry (φ ) + fluid (φ . a function of porosity (φ) and water saturation (SW): K sat K dry Kf = + = dry (φ ) + fluid (φ . Voigt : K f = S w K w + (1 − S w ) K hc  Kw K hc   To compute new porosity and fluid values with Gassmann.

K m = mineral bulk mod. we compute their values at various fluid saturations..  Gassmann showed that the shear modulus is independent of fluid content. 18 . where : K m − K sat K m − K dry φ ( K m − K f ) −1  Sw 1 − Sw  Kf =  +  = fluid bulk mod.  Kw K hc   The next page shows this in a more intuitive way.The Gassmann equation  Once we have computed the dry rock bulk and shear moduli at various porosities.  He also showed that the bulk modulus of the various components are related by the following equation: K sat K dry Kf = + . using the Gassmann equation.

Gassmann equation is a combination 2. the curve and along the dry. Up to the saturated That is. as shown in the appendix. dry modulus paths. 19 . There are two ways to go from the dry high porosity value (φdry_cal) to the saturated low porosity value (φsat_new): 1. Along the dry curve and of movement along the saturated and up to the saturated one.Intuitive development of Gassmann This figure shows the dry bulk modulus Kdry (in red) and the fluid bulk modulus Ksat as a function of porosity.

 The figure on the next page compares all the bounds. the Reuss bound is the harmonic average given by: 1 1 − φ / φc φ / φc = + M R (φ ) M cal Mm  The Voigt bound is the arithmetic average given by: M V (φ ) = (1 − φ / φc ) M cal + (φ / φc ) M m  The Hill bound is the mean of the Voigt and Reuss bounds: M H (φ ) = ( M V + M R ) / 2  The upper and lower Hashin-Shtrikman bounds are more complex and are described in the appendix. 20 .Other bounds  In the previous figures I used the Reuss bound. If we let M stand for either the bulk or shear modulus.

Comparison of the five bounds The five bounds for the bulk modulus (left) and shear modulus (right) from the mineral value (φ = 0) to the calibrated value (φc = 0. Hill and Reuss bounds. in blue. or HS-.4). and Hashin- Shtrikman lower bound. or HS+. 21 . in red. and the dashed lines show the Voigt. The heavy lines are the Hashin-Shtrikman upper bound.

S w ) = . S w ) ρ sat (φ . S w )  Finally. the VP/VS ratio and the P-impedance (ρVP) are computed and crossplotted. VS (φ . S w ) = ρ sat (φ . S w ) = ρm (1 − φ ) + ρw S wφ + ρhc (1 − S w )φ  Having the moduli and density as a function of porosity and fluid saturation allows us to compute the velocities: K sat (φ .  This also requires that we compute the density at each porosity and saturation. using the formula: ρsat (φ . we compute the velocities.Computing the density and velocities  Once we have the moduli computed. 22 . S w ) + ( 4 / 3) µ (φ ) µ (φ ) VP (φ . as shown in the next page.

23 .  Compute the moduli of the dry rock frame over a range of porosities using the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound. S-wave velocity for each scenario and cross-plot VP/VS ratio versus P-impedance.The Ødegaard/Avseth/Dvorkin/Nur RPT  The preceding pages gave a general overview of the rock physics template method.  The default RPT in our software is the one by Ødegaard and Avseth.  Compute the P-wave velocity.  Performing fluid substitution with the Gassmann equations. which involves the following steps:  Compute the moduli of the dry rock frame for a given porosity/pressure using Hertz-Mindlin (HM) theory.

in a clean sand case. 24 .The Ødegaard/Avseth RPT Here is a plot of the Ødegaard/Avseth RPT for a range of porosities and water saturations.

Obviously. We will compare this fit on a shallow Alberta sand.The rock physics template (RPT) Now return to the figure shown in the Ødegaard and Avseth (2003) paper. 25 . the gas sands and brine sands shown here can be modeled by the previous theory.

as shown on the right above. 26 . Note the agreement with the previous template for the various lithological units.The rock physics template (RPT) P-impedance VP/VS Depth (m/s*g/cc) Ratio Shales (m) 600 Top Gas Wet sands Cemented sands Base Gas Gas sands 700 I will illustrate its applications using the values between 600 and 700 m for a gas sand from Alberta.

The fit is reasonably good but certainly not perfect.The rock physics template (RPT) Here. 27 . we have computed and drawn the rock physics template using the default parameters.

 However.Adjusting the fit  To get a better fit. we can observe the fit to the real data get better or worse.  The final result is shown in the next figure. another approach is to use the computed values of the dry rock bulk and shear moduli and then “tweak” them interactively with the option “User Input”. we could change the default parameters and visually observe the result. 28 . using the the lower Hashin- Shtrikman bound and Gassmann substitution.  As we change the input dry moduli.  The resulting values at all porosities and saturations are then computed as before.

The rock physics template (RPT) By adjusting the dry bulk and shear moduli. 29 . we are able to adjust the template so that the gas sand is predicted very well. However. the wet and cemented sands are not predicted very closely.

The rock physics template (RPT) On this plot. we have used the cemented sand model and also adjusted the temperature and pressure of the reservoir to get a much better fit. 30 .

31 . By adjusting the dry terms.The shale line Finally. we superimpose a shale line by using a similar method but assuming shale type parameters. we get a reasonable fit.

32 . the transform simply involves right clicking on the names on each axis. µρ vs.Transforming to LMR space If you prefer mu-rho versus lambda-rho (i.e. λρ) as your elastic constants for cross-plotting (or some other combination). The result is shown here for LMR.

 I will also illustrate the new interactive multiple cross plot window option in HRS-9 R2.  The final result is shown in the next figure.  In this example. let’s see how to apply this approach to real data. I will use the inverted data from the 2D line that is intersected by the well just discussed. 33 .Adjusting the fit  Next.

Application to real seismic data A pre-stack inversion was done over the seismic volume associated with the gas well. with VP/VS ratio shown in color and the traces showing acoustic impedance. 34 .

35 . gas sand and cemented sand are shown here.Application to real seismic data Shale Gas Sand Cemented Sand The picked horizons and the crossplot zones corresponding to shale.

7 1200 6400 P-Impedance (m/s*g/cc) Here is the VP/VS Ratio versus P-impedance crossplot of the three picked zones from the previous cross-section.Application to real seismic data 2. 36 .9 Shale Cemented Sand VP/VS Ratio Gas Sand 1.

showing a reasonable match.5 VP/VS Ratio 1.5 1200 P-Impedance (m/s*g/cc) 6400 The superposition of the rock physics template built from the well logs on top of the seismically derived values.Application to real seismic data 3. 37 .

38 . Hill and both the upper and lower HS bounds.  This will implement the Gregory-Pickett method in the same way as described by Hilterman (1983) and Russell (2013). Voigt.  In HRS-10 we plan to offer the user the option to use all five of the bounds described in this talk: Reuss.  We also plan to expand the RPT approach to include the theory of Vernik and Kachanov (2010).Future enhancements  The current implementation of the RPT is largely built around the method proposed by Ødegaard and Avseth. in which the Reuss bound was used. which involves computing the the dry rock frame moduli using Hertz-Mindlin theory and the moduli over a range of porosities using the lower Hashin-Shtrikman (HS) bound.

Hashin-Shtrikman. involving Hertz- Mindlin. cemented sand and Gassman substitution theory.  Instead of focusing on the more complicated equations (given in the appendix). I illustrated the use of the RPT. I illustrated the concepts behind the theory using graphical methods.  The method is based on papers by Dvorkin and Nur (1996) and Ødegaard and Avseth (2003). Conclusions  In this talk. 39 . I discussed the computation of the rock physics template (RPT) and how we have implemented this method in the Hampson-Russell software suite.  Using log and inverted seismic data from the Colony sand of central Alberta.

M. and Avseth. 60. June Issue. E. Seismic Exploration Modeling Course Notes: Geophysical Development Corporation. J. 1996. and Nur. Texas. Mukerji. Vernik.. Ødegaard. 1984. Modeling elastic properties of siliciclastic rocks: Geophysics. Interpretation of elastic inversion results using rock physics templates: EAGE. P. 22 – 30. Houston. 2003... G. 40 .. B. 2010. Mavko. and T. 75. Seismic pore space compressibility and Gassmann's relation: Geophysics.. 1995. Hilterman. 61. 2013. 1743-1749. L. Expanded Abstracts. 1363-1370. Elasticity of high-porosity sandstones: Theory for two North Sea data sets: Geophysics. A Gassmann-consistent rock physics template: CSEG Recorder.References Dvorkin. F. Russell.. E171-E182. A. and Kachanov. J.