See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337024863

Carbonate reservoir characterization using simultaneous inversion in field “X”

Conference Paper  in  AIP Conference Proceedings · November 2019

DOI: 10.1063/1.5132450

CITATIONS READS
0 208

3 authors, including:

Mohammad Syamsu Rosid Mochamad Wahdanadi Haidar

University of Indonesia University of Indonesia
97 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ML-SVD Project View project

RockPhysics Pore Type Inversion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Syamsu Rosid on 18 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Carbonate reservoir characterization using
simultaneous inversion in field “X”
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2168, 020023 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132450
Published Online: 04 November 2019

M. F. Reza, M. S. Rosid, and M. W. Haidar

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Development of magnetic generator data acquisition system based on microcontroller for

Faraday rotation instrumentation
AIP Conference Proceedings 2168, 020021 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132448

Synthesis of liquid fuel through hydrothermal conversion of natural rubber

AIP Conference Proceedings 2168, 020058 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132485

Investigation on structure, magnetic and dielectric properties of (BiFeO3)1-

x(Bi12.24Co12.8O40)x composite
AIP Conference Proceedings 2168, 020008 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132435

AIP Conference Proceedings 2168, 020023 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132450 2168, 020023

© 2019 Author(s).
 Carbonate Reservoir Characterization Using Simultaneous
Inversion in Field “X”
M. F. Reza1, M. S. Rosid1, a) and M.W. Haidar2
1
Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (FMIPA), Universitas Indonesia,
Depok 16424, Indonesia
2
Pertamina Hulu Energi, Jl. T.B. Simatupang Kav. 88, Jakarta 12520, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: syamsu.rosid@ui.ac.id

Abstract. Carbonate reservoir has been characterized in the field “X” using Simultaneous Inversion to determine
lithology and fluid content. The reservoir located in northern East Java Basin in the form of big reef carbonate on Tuban
Formation. Carbonate Reservoir has unique characteristics than the others because its diagenesis process which may
affect highly heterogeneities. Simultaneous Inversion is implemented in this study as it can generate acoustic impedance,
shear impedance and rock density simultaneously. It give the availability of the fluid parameters for the reservoirs, thus,
simultaneous inversion gives benefittoward theacoustic inversion which only generates acoustic impedance. We then
extract Lame parameters from the 3 outputs that are Lambda Rho which is sensitive to fluid content and Mu Rho which is
sensitive to lithology. Vp/Vs ratio can also be generated to sharply identify fluid content. Simultaneous inversion in field
“X” is controlled by 2 wells, M01 and M02. In this study we use angle gather as seismic input. Based on analysis of
Lambda Mu Rho and Vp/Vs ratio, the reservoir has potential hydrocarbon. The existence hydrocarbon is indicated from
cross plot Vp/Vs vs Lambda Rho, where the value of Vp/Vs is about 1.7–1.8 and Lambda Rho is about 40–60 Gpa *g/cc
as well as the Mu rho value is about 40–80 Gpa * g/cc from the Mu Rho vs Density’s cross plot and the depth is about
8400–8750 ft based on depth-plot from measured depth (calculated from KB). The slicing map shows that the lithology
and hydrocarbon fluid tend to spread to North West of field “X”.

Keyword: Simultaneous inversion, lambda mu rho, Vp/Vs ratio, reservoir characterization

INTRODUCTION

Oil and gas nowadays have become main sources all over the word and because of that many companies have
done exploration to seek their reserves. One of the methods, that have been used widely over the years to seek their
reserves or their potential hydrocarbon in the reservoir, is seismic reflection. It is used to get information such as
physical properties of the reservoir rock which is controlled by well data [1]. Rock itself has density and changes of
the density that will lead to change of seismic impedance [2] and the effect can be observed clearly from seismic
data.
Previously, reservoir characterization only used acoustic impedance (Zp) to obtain the information about
physical properties of the rock and could predict what the lithology and fluid content are [3]. However, due to its
limitation, that parameter can not be used to clearly distinguish the lithology and fluid content. Nevertheless, this
problem can be overcome with Shear Impedance (Zs) to extract more information about physical properties of the
rock [4].
These days, acoustic impedance and shear impedance often be collaborated to extract more specific informations
about physical properties of the rock. Those two parameters can extract another parameter, that is Lame parameter,
which is consist of Lambda Rho and Mu Rho [5]. Those parameters are sensitive about the change of the lithology

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Current Progress in Mathematics and Sciences (ISCPMS2018)
AIP Conf. Proc. 2168, 020023-1–020023-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132450
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1915-5/$30.00

020023-1
and fluid content. Lambda Rho sensitive to change of the fluid content and Mu Rho sensitive to change of the fluid
content. Not only those parameters but also ratio Vp/Vs can be generated by elaborating acoustic impedance and
shear impedance. It helps to sharpen analysis about fluid content because it is affected by the fluid in the reservoir so
the ratio can be high if there is only a little fluid content but can be low if there are many fluid content.
The Simultaneous Inversion arrived as a response from the need to extract more informative parameters from
seismic data to get solutions of geological problems that cannot be solved by acoustic inversion. The parameter of
Vs in Simultaneous Inversion is able to clear up, e.g, the dualism between porosity in carbonates and shales, in
which Zp alone cannot overcome this problem. Thus, the parameter of S-wave is critical to assess between reservoir
and non-reservoir rocks [6]. In this context, Simultaneous Inversion is the best approach because it uses acoustic
impedance, shear impedance and rock density simultaneously to characterize reservoir and to minimize error in the
seismic processing [7] .
One of the obstacles in using Simultaneous Inversion for carbonate rocks is in contrast with sandstones, shale
and other lithology. These lithotypes are vertically and laterally heterogeneous and reflects a complicated dispute
concerning the reservoir characterization. Because carbonates are dominated by biological origin, they have
complicated textures and are prone to diagenesis modifications, leading to mineralogy and pore structure changes
that make these rocks more challenging to model [8]. Although there are many obstacles in applying Simultaneous
inversion in carbonate rocks, there is a success history in 2017 where Cataldo et al. [9] have been success to learn
the benefits and disadvantages of regaining the petrophysical parameters from a carbonate reservoir using
Simultaneous Inversion and found the anomalies of hydrocarbon in oil field.
The purpose of this study is to identify the lithology and fluid content of "X" field using Simultaneous inversion
and to estimate the value of Vp/Vs ratio and Lambda Mu Rh of the prospect area so that we can predict the
distribution of lithology and fluid content from slicing volume. Seismic data is given in Pre Stack time migration
and processed furthermore to get the result inversion of Vp/Vs ratio, Lambda Rho, and Mu Rho in which useful to
reservoir characterization in "X" Field. This is the first application of Simultaneous Inversion for this oil field.
In this study, we would observe a field which is located in northern East Java Basin in the form of big reef
carbonate on Tuban Formation. It is proven because many production of hidrocarbon at miosen and the drilling still
continue until now. Stratigraphycally the location of the reservoir is shown at Fig. 1a where the lithology is
dominated by reef carbonate [10].

(a) (b)

(c)
FIGURE 1. (a) Field of the study, (b) Seismic section “X” Field Prestack Time Migration and
(c) Physiography map of the East of Java.

020023-2
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 2. Seismic data (a) before conditioning and (b) after conditioning.

The 3D seismic data are about 650 inlines and 300 xlines and using 2 wells that is M-01 and M-02. The polarity
uses from this study is reverse polarity based on 3D seismic data given by the company. It is loaded into Hampson
Rusell software for further analysis. Figure 1 shows the field of study, seismic section “X” field, and Physiography
map of East Java [10].

METHOD
The first step is data conditioning. It is divided into some processes such as angle mute, parabolic transform
radon, phase shift, super gather, and angle gather [11]. Figure 2 shows the process of the conditioning data from raw
data seismic to angle gather or we can call it as data after conditioning. You can obviously see the raw data still
random and there is many different amplitude (black-thick-area) among the traces and many noises in the data but
when the data is successfully conditioned, the amplitude among the traces is almost same and the noise also can be
eliminated.
After that, the process was followed by another step that is well-seismic tie. It is important because both well
data and seismic data have different domain, well data is depth domain while seismic data is time domain. Before
applying this process, Check shot correction must be treated first to change the domain of the well become time
domain so we can tie well data and seismic data because of same domain after check shot correction [12]. Wavelet is
important to use here in order to get good correlation between well data and seismic data. Partial angle stack is a
wavelet which used on this study because it can cover mostly input of seismic inversion data in the form Angle
gather.
As you can see above, the wavelet is following the seismic data given that is reverse polarity. Because the
seismic data is given from Pre stack so that, it is highly expected that the high frequency of the seismic data will lose
the energy as it moves from near to the far offset [13]. Therefore, each of CDP will represent different wavelet.
Instead of extract wavelet each offset, it is better to extract the wavelet based on certain angle that is near, mid, and
far angle as shown in Fig. 3. For this case near angle (1–14º), mid angle (14–26º), and far angle (26–39º). This range
comes from the incident angle of the seismic data given which is about 39º. The wavelet itself is used to do seismic
well tie as shown in Fig. 4. We get the correlation of 0.808 with time shift 0 ms.
Together the wavelet and seismic well tie are used to generate low frequency model or initial model of the
inversion and the convolution process is carried out and applied to the full cube. As a result, we can get Inverted
Acoustic Impedance (Zp), Inverted Shear Impedance (Zs) and Inverted Density (rho). From those three, we can get
other information that is Lambda Rho, Mu Rho and Vp/Vs ratio.

020023-3
 FIGURE 3. Extraction of Statistical Wavelet near, mid, and far angle.

FIGURE 4. Well tie in M02.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pre inversion analysis is a tool for geophysicist to test variety of inversion parameter on a selected well before
applying to full cube of the seismic volume. It allows us to measure feasibility of the inversion and to analyze the
outcome of the inversion based on the coefficient such as k, m, kc, dan mc [4]. Both crossplot of ln ZS vs ln ZP and
ln ρ vs ln ZP are having proportional trend marked by the red linear line which means that the inversion is good
enough. Since the inversion is an uncertainty model as the subsurface of the earth is heterogeneous so that the input
seismic data will not give the definite true because of limitation of the tools and there’s anomalies in each of
exploration. The anomalies are shown by ΔLS and ΔLD [4] from Fig. 5. The line with most plotted data will
represent the best fit line (red line) in other hand, the deviation of data is away from the trendline and they are fluid
anomalies.
Figure 6a shows that cross plot between Mu Rho vs Density using color key of the gamma ray to distinguish the
lithology. Gamma ray is used to determine zone of shale or non-shale. Shale zone is associated with higher gamma
ray in other hand, non-shale or for this case is carbonate can give lower gamma ray responses [9]. Clearly, we can

020023-4
see that the separation about the lithology red one is Shale and blue one is carbonate. The separation itself is good
enough because Mu Rho relate to rigidity which is one of the Lame parameters. Gamma ray cut off show 68 API,
Mu-Rho and density respectively around 20–80 Gpa * g/cc, 2.2–2.7 g/cc on carbonate. To determine in what depth
of the prospect area, we coud see in Fig. 6b. As mentioned before, red color is indicated as shale zone and blue one
is indicated as non-shale zone or in this case is carbonate reservoir so that from Fig. 6b we can determine the
prospect area is about from 8400–8750 ft is measured from MD (calculated from KB).
Figure 7 shows that crossplot between Vp/Vs vs Lambda Rho using color key Primary velocity (Vp) to predict
fluid content from this research. Vp/Vs and Lambda Rho is relatively sensitive about changing of fluid content.
When there are fluid content, the value of Vp/Vs ratio ideally will decrease because Vp decrease [14]. Based on Fig.
7, the yellow one indicates hidrocarbon zone. Vp/Vs and Lambda Rho are around 1.7–1.8 and 40–60 Gpa * g/cc,
respectively. We do not interest about light blue and black one because it can indicate either high saturation of water
or tight zone.
Once the inversion is applied to the volume seismic, we can clearly see the result of the inversion one is better
than low frequency model (Fig. 8). The color of inversion seems variety rather than low frequency model which
means there maybe some layers with high impedance but different from physical properties in this case is
carbonate.

FIGURE 5. Crossplot Pre inversion analysis.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 6. (a) Crossplot Mu Rho vs Density and (b) depth-plot Mu Rho vs Density .

020023-5
 FIGURE 7. Crossplot Vp/Vs vs Lambda Rho.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 8. Comparison between Zp from (a) low frequency model or initial model and (b) inverted model.

Figure 9a shows result of transformation Lambda Rho where fluid content has value about 40–60 Gpa*g/cc
which is located at anticline colored yellow. Fig. 9b shows the result of transformation Mu Rho where carbonate
zone have two zones that is intermediate-high compactness (tight) and low-intermediate compactness (porous)
respectively the value are 54–80 Gpa*g/cc and 34–54 Gpa*g/cc. Fig. 9c shows result of inversion Vp/Vs ratio
derived from Zp/Zs where carbonate zone has value 1.7188–1.8340 ft/s * g/cc. This parameter is sensitive about the
fluid content of the pores of the rock because it is affected by the velocity of Vp and Vs. Vp is tend to decrease if it
through the fluid in other hand, Vs is relatively steady, So that Vp/Vs is relative low if it contains fluid [14].

Slicing
After we analyze from both Seismic data and well data, we can slice the cube of seismic itself to see the spread
of the lithology and fluid content. Based on elastic parameter Mu-Rho is relatively sensitive about litology changes
so higher value can indicate as a carbonate zone. It also can be divided to tight and porous carbonate. Fig. 10a
shows the slice of Mu Rho, porous carbonate is indicated by dark yellow to Red with the value 49.3–57 Gpa* g/cc
and generally the spread head to the north west. Fig. 10b shows the slice of Lambda Rho which is relatively

020023-6
sensitive about fluid content. Carbonate which is easily compressed indicates fluid content. The fluid content based
on slicing is around 47–71 Gpa*g/cc which has the orange to yellow color and close to the crossplot as it mentioned
before and the spread also head to north west.

(a) (b)

(c)
FIGURE 9. (a) Inverted Lambda Rho, (b) Mu Rho, and (c) Vp/Vs ratio.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 10. Horizon Slicing of (a) Mu Rho (b) Lambda Rho.

020023-7
 CONCLUSION

This study have been successfully identified the lithology and fluid content in the “X” field using simultaneous
inversion which is supported by crossplot of the well and seismic data in East Java, indonesia. Because
Simultaneous Inversion both low and high frequency component can be generated from prestack seismic (same as
input data) and gives more spesific information instead of post-stack inversion (acoustic inversion). In prestack
inversion, in additional to P-wave acoustic impedance, shear impedance and density could be extracted from pre-
stack seismic data
Good correlation between wavelet and seismic well tie is very important because it helps us to determine k, m,
kc, dan mc correctly and make the resolution of result of inversion is better. The resolution achieved through this
inversion allows us to characterize a reservoir better, especially by applying the Lambda-mu-rho analysis into the
inversion volumes.
As we have shown earlier, in the reservoir zone, acoustic impedance, shear impedance, and density are
Increasing. Because in the carbonate zone, P-wave velocity increase as well as S-wave velocity hence P-wave
velocity to S-wave velocity in this zone increase. Using P-wave velocity to S-wave velocity ratio against Lambda
Rhocrossplot, we have divided four distinct facies based on four distinct behaviors on this crossplot but it is believed
the prospect is in the yellow zone with the value Lambda Rho 40–60 Gpa * g/cc and Vp/Vs is 1.7–1.8. Gamma ray
in the reservoir zone is indicated as low so that we can assume the reservoir zone is not shale, in this case is
carbonate and the depth is about from 8400–8750 ft is measured from MD (calculated from KB). Results that
generated from this plotting area clarified confirmed by well data in the area.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to thank PT. Pertamina Petro China East Java for allowing authors to use the data in this
study. We also thank DRPM Universitas Indonesia for financial support of PITTA’s grant
No. 2279/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018.

REFERENCES

1. S. Sukmono, Fundamental of Seismic Inversion (ITB University, Bandung, 2005).

2. O. Yilmaz, Seismic Data Analysis: processing, inversion and interpretation of seismic data (Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, 2001).
3. A. A. Yoong, L. A. Lubis and D. P. Ghosh, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 38, 012007
(2016).
4. D. P Hampson and B. H Russell, Simultaneous Inversion of pre-stack seismic data, Hampson-Russell Software
Services Ltd., and Brad Bankhead (Veritas DGC, Houston, 2005).
5. W. Goodway, T. Chen and J. Downton, Improved AVO fluid detection and lithology discrimination using Lamé
petrophysical parameters;“λρ”,“μρ”, & “λ/μ fluid stack”, from P and S inversions, (Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, 1997), pp. 183-186.
6. Y. Li, J. Downton and B. Goodway, The Leading Edge 22, 670-674 (2003).
7. D. Hampson, The Leading Edge 10, 39-42 (1991).
8. G. P. Eberli, G. T. Baechle, F. S. Anselmetti and M. L. Incze, The Leading Edge 22, 654-660 (2003).
9. R. A Cataldo and E. P. Leite, REM, Int. Eng. J. 71, 45-51 (2018).
10. R. W. van Bemmelen, The Geology of Indonesia (Govt. Printing Office, The Hague, 1949).
11. CGGVeritas Company, Hampson-Russel Software Data Conditioning Workflow (2011), available at
https://www.cgg.com/technicalDocuments/cggv_0000012723.pdf
12. P. C. H. Veeken, Seismic Stratigraphy Basin Analysis and Reservoir Characterisation (Elsevier Ltd,
Amsterdam, 2007), Vol. 37.
13. D. C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications Fifth Edition (Prentice-Hall. Inc, USA, 1998).
14. H. G. Moghanloo, M. A. Riahi and M Bagheri, J. Geophys. Eng. 15, 1376-1388 (2018).

020023-8
View publication stats