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

net/publication/268454654

A possible explanation of low frequency shadows beneath gas reservoirs

Conference Paper · September 2012

DOI: 10.1190/segam2012-0380.1

CITATION READS
1 193

2 authors, including:

Gennady Goloshubin
University of Houston
81 PUBLICATIONS   927 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gennady Goloshubin on 02 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Main Menu
A possible explanation of low frequency shadows beneath gas reservoirs
Gennady Goloshubin*, and Elmira Chabyshova, University of Houston
Summary
Asymptotic analysis of poroelastic Biot’s model for wave
propagation in highly interbedded gas reservoirs suggests
significant and anomalous amount of mode conversions
between Fast and Slow P-waves, which may be observed
from surface seismic reflection data. Those converted P-
waves experience high frequency dependent attenuation. In
case if some converted wave propagated only a short
fraction of its travel path as Slow P-wave it will not be
attenuated as much as Slow P-wave, but it will be
somewhat delayed relative to Fast P-wave reflection. The
goal of this study is to estimate the influence of those
converted waves into total reflected P-waves energy at low
seismic frequencies.
Introduction
There are numerous examples of successful applications of
hydrocarbon indicators based on frequency-dependent
analyses of the reflected P-waves at seismic frequencies. In
some cases (Goloshubin et al., 2006) the hydrocarbon-rich
zones of a reservoir are localized as low-frequency
amplitude anomalies with no remarkable time delay of such
anomalies relatively to the exact location of a reflector
(Figure 1). These anomalies are associated with high P-
wave attenuation at low frequencies (Korneev et al., 2004
and others). Such attenuation may be a product of wave
propagation in inhomogeneous Biot’s medium (Dutta and
Ode, 1979; Gurevich et al., 1997; Carcione et al., 2003 and
others).
Figure 1: Low frequency (10 Hz) reflections from 15-20 m
thick fractured shale (after Goloshubin et al., 2006).
There are different types of low frequency seismic
anomalies which can be seen below gas reservoirs
(Castagna et al., 2003).Some of those time delays can be
more than a hundred milliseconds relative to the top of the
reservoir (Figure 2).
© 2012 SEG
SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting
Figure 2: High energy at 10 Hz below 17-20 m (60ft)
sandstone reservoir (after Castagna et al., 2003).
High attenuation of conventional P-waves and their
velocity dispersion can not explain a time delay or excess
of low frequency energy below reservoirs. The mechanism
of such gas shadows generation is still not well understood.
In this study we consider a possible explanation of such
low frequency effects with time delays using converted
Biot Fast-Slow-Fast P- waves in a thinly layered porous
permeable fluid-saturated medium. We utilize an
asymptotic analysis of Biot’s model of poroelasticity (Silin
and Goloshubin, 2010) for descriptions and calculations of
the reservoir responces. To explain a possible gas shadow
mechanism at seismic frequencies we used a reservoir
model with typical parameters of a sandstone reservoir.
Theory
Even in the case of a normally incident P-wave, each
permeable interface causes generation of two reflected
(Fast and Slow) and two transmitted (Fast and Slow) P-
waves. The Fast P- waves appear due to the effect of rock
compressibility during wave propagation, while the Slow
P-waves are results of the pore fluid motion relative to the
skeleton. Those Slow P-waves strongly depend on fluid
mobility. The Biot Slow P-waves have much higher values
of frequency-dependent attenuation than the Fast P-waves
and have very slow highly dispersive velocity (Dutta and
Ode, 1979 and others). In seismic exploration practice,
reflected Slow P-waves are generally not observed at the
surface because they are highly attenuated. However, any
model of wave propagation in the earth is incomplete if it
does not include energy partitioning at interfaces between
Fast and Slow P- waves. Slow P-waves have been ignored
to a large extent in seismic exploration, because the amount
of energy converted at a single interface is relatively small.
However, in a highly interbedded medium with high
permeability, the conversion effects at many interfaces may
become significant, particularly because those effects are
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-0380.1
Page 1
Main Menu

Low frequency shadows beneath gas reservoirs

partially additive as opposed to compensatory like in case Reservoir model

of Fast P-wave transmission coefficients. If a medium
contains many interbedded thin permeable layers (1 m thick An asymptotic solution to a seismic wave propagating
and less) a converted Fast-Slow-Fast P- wave would not be within a reservoir zone requires certain petrophysical
attenuated completely and would have large time delays parameters which are listed in Table 1.
especially at low frequencies. Note that the Fast P- wave
reflections from the top and bottom of a very thin layer, in Table 1. Input petrophysical parameters.
particular multiples, practically cancel each other. VP P- wave velocity of saturated rock
Considering the effects of converted Slow P-waves on thin Kgr Bulk modulus of the grains
layer reflectivity from this point of view (see Figure 3), let
ρgr Grain density of rock
Ao be the amplitude of the incident Fast P-wave. In this
case Slow P-wave velocity will be denoted VS(ω) and φ Porosity
attenuation coefficient αS(ω), (see Appendix). The κ Permeability
amplitude of the reflected Fast P-wave, (A) from a thin VS S- wave velocity of saturated rock
permeable layer is equal to: Kf Fluid Bulk modulus
ρf Fluid density
A  Ao  (TFSTSF TFF  TFF RFSTSF )exp(i H / VS ()   S () H ). η Fluid viscosity

For our calculations we considered the multi-layered

sandstone reservoir model of total thickness equal to 20 m,
which corresponds to a typical reservoir thickness with
observed gas shadows (Figure 2). The reservoir rock
contains either gas or brine. For the study model the values
of φ (porosity) were randomly assigned from 7% to 30%.
Those values of porosity correspond to the values of
porosity in a typical sandstone reservoir. The thickness of
each thin layer varied from 0.1- 1.18m, which corresponds
to the thickness from 4 inches up to 3ft10 inches. The
structure of our reservoir model is displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Scheme of P-wave reflections from thin

permeable layer based on converted Fast-Slow-Fast waves
(after Silin and Goloshubin, 2010).

In the formula above ε = (iρflκω/η) is a dimensionless

parameter, which depends on imaginary unit i = √(-1),
angular frequency ω=2πf, rock permeability κ, fluid density
f and viscosity η; H is the thickness of the layer (Figure 3).
From the formula it can be clearly seen that A=O(√ε) and
time delays will be of orders of 1/VS(ω). It means that the
reflection coefficient from a highly porous and permeable
thin layered structure may be of the order of 10-3-10-4 and
time delays may be up to ten or hundred milliseconds at Figure 4: Reservoir model structure representing porosity
low seismic frequencies. For comparison a reflection variations with depth within reservoir zone.
coefficient from a single boundary with high impedance
contrast may be of order of 10-1 amplitude. We investigate Further to calculate reservoir permeability which is usually
the effect of such conversions on synthetic reflection a function of porosity we used a formula κ=4*φ2. Fluid
seismograms based on a multi-layered sandstone reservoir saturation of the rock was also based on its porosity value.
model.

© 2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-0380.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 2
Main Menu

Low frequency shadows beneath gas reservoirs

If porosity, φ, of a corresponding layer was more than 15%, The seismograms displayed in Figure 6 vary depending on
then it was gas saturated, Sg = 1; otherwise it was saturated permeability of the reservoir model. The permeable nature
with bound water, Sg = 0. of the reservoir contributes to generation of converted Fast-
Slow- Fast P- waves. Impermeable environment does not
P- and S-wave velocities within reservoir zone were produce such converted waves. Due to frequency-
specified based on the values of its porosity as well: dependent attenuation of those converted P-waves they
VP  1000*(6*(1   ) 2  1.5 ); might be noticeable at low seismic frequencies (Figure 5).
Further they may alter the tail of seismic wave response,
VS  1000*(4*(1   ) 2 ). (Figure 6, bottom). The impact of the converted P-wave
Other parameters were taken from (Mavko et al., 2009). reflections might be better seen with the application of
Those parameters include bulk modulus of the grains Kgr= Automatic Gain Control (AGC), Figure 6.
38 GPa, bulk modulus of the water Kwater= 2.2 GPa,
viscosity of the gas ηgas= 0.01 cp, viscosity of the water
ηwater= 1.0 cp, ρgas= 0.1 g/cc, density of the water ρwater= 1.0
g/cc, and density of the grain ρgr= 2.65 g/cc. Bulk modulus
of dry frame rock, (Kdry) was calculated based on the
Gassmann equation using VP, VS, and Kgr. Bulk density of
rock, (ρb) also was calculated using the values of ρgr and ρf,
(water or gas).

Modeling Results

First we have investigated an influence of the thin layer

thickness on time delay. In this case the time delay of the
converted Fast-Slow-Fast P-waves at low seismic
frequencies is comparable with time delay of gas shadows
in reality. Further we analyzed the P-wave reflections at
different frequencies. Only at low seismic frequencies we
observed relatively high amplitudes of converted waves
with remarkable time delays. The Figure 5 displays the
distribution of reflection coefficients of Fast-Slow-Fast P-
waves at 10 Hz from our multi-layered reservoir model.

Converted Fast-Slow-Fast P-waves

Figure 6: The normalized responses of non-permeable (top)
and permeable (bottom) media with applied AGC at 10 Hz.

Conclusions

In this study we have considered an explanation of the gas

Figure 5: P-wave reflections from multi-layered reservoir
model at 10 Hz.
It clearly displays that for such a multi-layered reservoir
some later strong enough reflections besides the main
response there. Those reflections might be the gas- shadow
effect.
The response of the reservoir model to passage of a single
10 Hz Ricker wavelet is represented in Figure 6.
shadows using converted Fast-Slow-Fast waves in a thinly
layered porous permeable fluid-saturated model of the
sandstone reservoir and utilized the asymptotic analysis of
Biot’s model of poroelasticity for description and
calculation of the reservoir response at seismic frequencies.
The response of the hypothetical reservoir model on
seismic P-wave propagation revealed late P-wave
reflections, which are similar to the gas shadow effect.
Such late reflections of relatively high amplitude were seen
in the model only at low frequencies. At this point, we
consider this proposed explanation for observed gas
shadow effects as a hypothesis only. We have yet to model
field data exhibiting gas shadows. In such situations the
finely layered impedance, water saturation, and

© 2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-0380.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 3
Main Menu

Low frequency shadows beneath gas reservoirs

permeability structure would have to be known, and the

Z1Z 2   1  2  1 1 b1
seismic data would have to be carefully processed and
spectrally decomposed. If our hypothesis is correct, we
D 
 M 1 M 2      2 M 1
 M1
2
  1 
expect such effects to be weakest in massive homogeneous
1 b 2
thick reservoirs and strongest for highly interbedded
 1 M 2
  2
   2 ,

M2
permeable reservoirs. The gas shadows are thus potentially
both a hydrocarbon and a reservoir quality indicator. Here Kf is the bulk modulus of fluid, Kg is the bulk modulus
of solid grain, K is the dry rock bulk modulus,  is porosity,
Acknowledgements
f is the fluid density, b is the bulk density, and M=4/3µ,
where µ is shear modulus. The asymptotic solution also
We would like to thank Dr. John Castagna, University of
provides the reflection and transmission coefficients for the
Houston, for discussion, valuable comments and
case of an incident Slow P wave, where the reflection and
suggestions.
transmission coefficients for converted Slow to Fast P wave
are denoted as RSF and TSF:
Appendix
Z 2 (1  R SS  T SS )
R SF  ;
In asymptotic analysis of Biot’s model of poroelasticity Z1  Z 2
(Silin & Goloshubin, 2010) the reflection and transmission
coefficient are expressed as a power series of the square  Z1 (1  R SS  T SS ) where
T SF  ,
root of a dimensionless parameter ε = (if κω/η), where f is Z1  Z 2
fluid density,  is permeability,  is fluid viscosity,  is
angular frequency, and i is the imaginary unit. In case of 1
  01
S
 02   02
S S
M 2 k02 S
 01
S S
M 1k01
Fast P incident wave, the reflection and transmission 
coefficients from Fast P wave to Fast P wave are denoted R SS  ;
1
as RFF and TFF; the reflection and transmission coefficients  S
M 2 k02 02   02
S S S
 01
S S
M 1k01

01
from Fast P wave to Slow P wave are denoted as RFS and
TFS. They have the following asymptotic forms for a 1
normally incident P wave:  02
S
M 2 k02 02   01
S S S
 01
S S
M 1k01

1 i 1 i T SS  ;
R FF  R0  R1FF ; T FF  1  R0  T1FF ; 1
2 2  01
S
M 2 k02 02   02
S S S
 01
S S
M 1k01
1 i 1 i 
R FS  R1FS  ; T FS  T1FS ;
 1
    M 2 ;  0S   M 
2 2 1
k0S  ; 0S   .
where R0 is the zero order classical reflection coefficient, vf M M
and the first order reflection and transmission coefficients
R1FF and T1FF have the form:
Velocity of Fast P wave and Slow P wave, VF and VS;
Z 2 (T1FS  R1FS ) Z ( R FS  T1FS ) attenuation coefficients of Fast P wave and Slow P wave,
R1FF  ; T1FF  1 1 . aF and aS (in unit of m-1) can be calculated from:
Z1  Z 2 Z1  Z 2
Here Z1 and Z2 are the acoustic impedance of medium 1 V F  vb 1 
  ;
M
2

aF 
   1F
;
     M  2 0F
and medium 2 respectively. 2
vb
The first order reflection and transmission coefficients R1FS
and T1FS have the form:
    2     M 
2
A M2  2
2
A  M1   1
2

 ; T1FS  V  vf
S
; a  S
,
    M 
R1FS , 2
2
D M2 D  M1 vf
where subscript 1 and 2 indicates medium number, and
 1    (1   ) K M   2

; 
M 
   M   f  
F M
  M  1  K sg ;
; where, b  ; vf  ;
 K fg  b f
0
  
  2Z Z
 
2
 M1 M2   2  
A   1 2 1  M M  .
 

   
;  1F 
  M 1    1  M 2    2  Z1  Z 2
   M    
2 2
2
  
 

© 2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-0380.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 4
Main Menu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-0380.1

EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2012
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for
each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.

REFERENCES
Carcione, J., H. Helle, and N. Pham, 2003, White’s model for wave propagation in partially saturated
rocks: Comparison with poroelastic numerical experiments: Geophysics, 68, 1389-1398.
Castagna, J., S. Sun, and R. Siegfried, 2003, Instantaneous spectral analysis: Detection of low-frequency
shadows associated with hydrocarbons: The Leading Edge, 22, 120-127.
Dutta, N. C., and H. Ode, 1979a, Attenuation and dispersion of compressional waves in fluid-filled
porous rocks with partial gas saturation (White model)-Part I: Biot theory: Geophysics, 44, 1777-
1788.
Dutta, N. C., and H. Ode, 1979b, Attenuation and dispersion of compressional waves in fluid-filled
porous rocks with partial gas saturation (White model)-Part II: Results: Geophysics, 44, 1789-1805.
Goloshubin, G., C. VanSchuyver, V. Korneev, D. Silin, V. Vingtalov, 2006, Reservoir imaging using low
frequencies of seismic reflections: The Leading Edge, 5, 527-531.
Gurevich, B., V. B. Zyrianov, S. L Lopatnikov, 1997, Short Note. Seismic attenuation in finely layered
porous rocks: Effects of fluid flow and scattering: Geophysics, 62, 319-324.
Korneev, V., G. Goloshubin, T. Daley, and D. Silin, 2004, Seismic low-frequency effects in monitoring
of fluid-saturated reservoirs: Geophysics, 69, 522-532.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, J. Dvorkin, 2009, The rock physics handbook: Cambridge University Press.
Silin, D., G. Goloshubin, 2010, An asymptotic model of seismic reflection from a permeable layer:
Transport in Porous Media , 83, 233-256.

© 2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-0380.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 5
View publication stats