ARMA/DGS/SEG International Geomechanics Symposium 21–XXXX

Geomechanical Characterisation of Unconventional Reservoir: 3D Seismic

Approach

Bouchachi, Youcef
Sonatrach, Algiers, Algeria

ABSTRACT:
The objective of this paper is to characterize a reservoir in Western Algeria basin, based on an integrated 3D geomechanical
model built on the basis of 3D seismic cube and well logs data. A well database has been built of the wells already drilled
in the region which contains density and sonic logs to construct 1D geomechanical model in each well of the study. Sonic
scanner log was used in two wells to evaluate the mechanical anisotropy in shale units. Consequently, these 1D models do
not translate exactly the complexities and heterogeneous of subsurface geology for the entire reservoir area.
3D seismic data have been integrated to insure the distribution of the different mechanical properties along the reservoir.
With the seismic inverted data 3-D dynamic moduli properties can be retrievied from P-wave and S-wave velocity models
(Azevedo 2014). 3D dynamic moduli are then used to construct stress field magnitudes (horizontal minimal stress, horizontal
maximal stress and vertical stress), that are calibrated at the level of each well.
Results indicate a regional a present day normal to strike-slip stress regime, high effective stress ratio close to 0.92 psi/ft has
been interpreted against Silurian hot shale units and overpressure regime against hot shale interpreted from 1D models.
The outline gives an estimation of elastic properties, mechanical properties and stress magnitudes in each point of the seismic
cube.3D stress model allows to better make the development plan of the reservoir because errors are reduced due to the
presence of calibrated well data and 3D reverse seismic data.

While bold typeface has been used in this template

1. INTRODUCTION
Geomechanical modelling is an important step for
reservoir development, because it takes into account
stress magnitudes and pore pressure variations (Mylnikov
et al., 2020). A geomechanical model is composed by
rock elastic parameters, stress orientation and in situ
stress magnitudes (Sengupta et al., 2011).
1-D geomehcanical model is built with open hole wireline
logs such as sonic log and density, this model is then
calibrated using mini-frac tests, laboratory measurements
or drilling observations (Abbas et al., 2018).
3-D geomehcanical model using seismic data could allow
the integration of data gathers between wells to get a
coherent and significant model, with coherent distribution
of elastic and mechanical parameters.
In our work, we have used the 3D- seismic inversion
volume to build a geomechanical model. This model has
been compared with 1-D models already calculated.
example to denote emphasis for critical instructions, bold
should not be used in a final submission.
Authors are encouraged to pay particular attention to the
quality of English in the submitted paper, especially if
English is not their first language. Failure to do so may
jeopardize acceptance of the paper.
2. METHODOLOGY
The main goal of this paper is to build a 3D
geomechanical model in the study area to get a continuous
information of present day stress component, rock
mechanical properties, and 3D elastic parameters.
Our approach is based on the construction of a 3D model
with 3D seismic data. First of all, we invert the 3D seismic
cube for elastic properties (density, P-wave and S-wave
velocities), then we compare to 1D geomechanical
models profiles in hand for each well of the study area
(Sengputa et al., 2011).
Before inferring the 3D seismic data, a time depth the 3D elastic and mechanical parameters. To do this, we
conversion imposes because the seismic data is processed use the approximation of Aki Richards (1980).
into time domain and the geomechanical model should be An amplitude-preserved processing sequence (Figure 2)
in depth domain, the link between those domains is the was applied to the recordings made in order to have
velocity model which is built by sonic logs, Check-shot, seismic cubes before summation capable to ascertaining
VSP interpretation and geological markers (Turpin et al., lithological variability using stratigraphic inversion.
2003).
To get a coherent inversion data, a quality control and pre-
conditioning of the data is required.
1.1. Rock Physics
The objective of this part is to reconstruct the missing
density log and sonic log in different wells, using rock
physics as a working tool.
As part of this study, seven wells are available, distributed
over the entire seismic volume, Table 1 summarizes the
available logging data for each well.
Table 1. Well data inventory (OK: for available log and NO: for
non-available log)

Wells Chec Gamma- DT DT Density

k- ray S
shot
W-1 OK OK OK NO NO
W-2 OK OK OK NO OK
W-3 NO OK OK OK OK
W-4 OK OK OK OK OK
W-5 NO OK OK OK OK
W-6 NO OK OK OK NO
W-7 NO OK OK NO NO
Among, only two wells have the S wave data, hence the
need to models this logs in order to build a robust database
for the 3D seismic model. Fig. 2. Workflow of the seismic inversion approach (DT:
Overall, the results obtained (Figure 1) match perfectly compressional slowness; SDT: shear slowness; Zp:
with the observed data, which can ensure the robustness compressional acoustic impedance; Zs: shear acoustic
impedance)
of this approach.
An arbitrary line was generated that passes through the
different wells (Figure 3), for the application of the
necessary test in order to choose the best parameters for
the best result. The choice of these parameters is based on
qualities observation and quality control of seismic data
as well as analysis of frequency spectra.
The analysis of the amplitude spectra considered a central
frequency of 45 Hz, which makes it possible to give a
vertical resolution equal to more than 20 m.
The analysis of the seismic data received showed good
quality except for few residual problems which are
Fig. 1. Correlation between the generated S wave and the random noises and the movement alignment of events in
measured S wave (µs/ft). the far offset. Therefore, the following sequence was
adopted to prepare the seismic data:
1.2. Seismic Inversion
The objective of this step is to calculate the 3D seismic
cube of P waves and that of S waves, in order to derive  Trim static (Table 2)
 Random noise (Table 3)
  Angle gather (Figure 4) frequency of 6 Hz). In addition, these frequencies serve as
a priori information for the seismic information for the
seismic inversion. The initial model is generated from the
interpolation of the guided well data with structural
interpretation.

Fig. 3. The seismic data of the project.

Table 2. Trim Statics parameters

Target event Geological level Fig. 4. The bands of the partial angles visualized on the gather
angles (near, middle, far).
Length 24ms

Max shift 8 ms

Time step 8 ms

Cross corrélation window 800 ms

Reference Type Full cdp stack

Table3. The parameters of random filter

Maximum Frequency (Hz): 100

Fig. 5. Construction of the initial Zp impedance model.

Low Delta-T (ms) -10
The next step is to perform an inversion analysis (Figure
High Delta-T(ms) 100 5). This process involves performing at the well locations
in order to optimize the inversion parameters and control
Maximum offset(m) 2925 quality. In addition, we could determine the amplitude
ratio between the synthetic trace and real trace, which is
Number of curves 50 related to the seismic traces. For this, the ratio between
the energy of the real trace and the energy of the synthetic
Desired Noise/Signal 0.8 trace, as well as the associated correlation coefficient, are
calculated for each trace around the well.
The seismic inversion before stack is generally a poorly
Before starting the seismic inversion, it is necessary to
posed problem, this serious problem is mainly due to the
build a frequent low initial model (Figure 4), by the term
non-uniqueness of the solution. If an inversion process
“low frequency” which means frequencies below the
has more than one outcome, we have the possibility to
frequency band of seismic data. They combine data from
choose between them. For this, we have integrated cross
wells with relatively wide frequency band (0 Hz to KHz)
plots (Figure 6) as additional information.
and seismic data with limited band (generally cut at a
Fig. 6. Crossplot log Zp vs log Zs (at the left) and Log Rho vs
Log Zp ( at the right).
Fig. 8. Arbitrary line representing the result of P- impedance
After several inversion tests, we could obtain the inversion.
parameters (Table 3) which ensure a better match between
the real observations and the solutions resulting from the
seismic inversion.
Table 4. Summary of correlation and error rates for inversion
analyse

Erreur
Puit Densit Corrélatio Erreu
s ZP(m/s)*(g/c Zs(m/s)*(g/c é n (%) r
c) c)
(g/cc)
W-1 617 390 0.045 94 0.45
W-2 656.27 605.67 0.1 89 0.44
W-4 989.84 724.19 0.09 86 0.5
W-5 838.8 819.98 0.17 92 0.39 Fig. 9. Arbitrary line representing the result of S- impedance
W-7 597.61 537.55 0.06 82 0.57 inversion.

Fig. 7. Pre-stack inversion analysis at Well-2.

Fig. 10. Arbitrary line representing the Density inversion result.
One all parameters are well chosen, we start the inversion
process on the seismic volume (Figure 7, 8, 9, 10)
1.3. Geomechanical Model

This inversion allowed to obtain an optimized density P
and S impedance cubes, which integrate the information
of the Wells as well as the information of the angles
cubes. The results give the extrapolation of the laws
applied to the Wells to the entire area covered by pre-
stack 3D seismic.
Geomechanics is involved in controlling the risks
associated with rock deformation (wellbore stability,
compaction, compartmentalisation of the reservoir and
the propagation of hydraulic fracturing (Zoback, 2010).
A 3-D geomechanical model (Figure 11) was built based
primarily on 3D seismic inversion results (acoustic
impedance, shear impedance and density cube). This
model is calibrated with a 1-D geoemechanical model
built on each well of the study area using a multitude of
logs (sonic logs, density log and FMI log).
The 3-D volumes used for this modelling are the shear
wave, the velocity of the compression wave, and the
density. The velocity-slowness conversion of the
compression and shear wave was done using Eq. 1 and 2
𝟑𝟎𝟒.𝟖
∆𝑻 = 𝑽𝑷 ⁄𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎
(1)
𝟑𝟎𝟒.𝟖 Fig. 12. Quality control of mechanical parameters at Well-3.
∆𝑻𝑺 = (2)
𝑽𝑺 ⁄𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎
Where:
∆T: slowness of the compressional wave (µs/ft).
∆TS: slowness of the shear wave (us/ft).
Vp: velocity of the compressional wave (m/s).
Vs: velocity of the shear wave.

Fig. 13. Quality control of stresses magnitudes and pore

pressure at well W-1, results of stress modelling at W-1,1D
geomechanical parameters (blue), 3-D geomechanical
parameters (red). Track1: vertical stress (psi); Track2: pore
pressure (psi), Track3: minimum horizontal stress (psi);
Track4: maximum horizontal stress (psi)

An estimate of the error was made at the level of all the

wells of the study between the 1-D geomechanical model
Fig. 11. 3-D geomehanical modelling workflow used in this and the 3-D geomehcanical model to validate the result of
study.
the 3-D model (Table 5)
The first parameter to be estimated in the workflow Table 5. Correlation and error rates for inversion analysis (Sv:
(Figure 11) are the dynamic elastic parameters, using the vertical stress; Pp: pore pressure; Shmin: minimum horizontal
3D volume of the density, the slowness of the stress; SHmax: maximum horizontal stress)
compression and shear wave.
Error Mean error Mean squared error
The elastic properties of the rock are calculated by
Gassmann’s equation (Gassmann, 1951) but the values Wells Sv Pp Shmin SHmax Sv Pp Shmin SHmax

obtained are overestimated because the rock show a more W-1 0 0 33.53 21.83 0 0 6.02 7.94
rigid behaviour. As a result, it becomes necessary to resort
to conversion models which allow the transition from W-2 0 0 20.46 19.51 0 0 8.89 13.49
dynamic to static conditions. However, the choice of
model depends on the geomehcanical behaviour of the W-3 0 0 -16.21 -25.33 0 0 10.18 8.32
rock and should be developed from laboratory tests. For
W-4 0 0 17.91 -26.85 0 0 7.31 6.7
our study, we used the seismic inversion results (Figure
12) for the modelling of the static mechanical parameters. W-5 0 0 14.66 -20.03 0 0 23.42 21.07
Pore pressure is obtained using Eaton’s model (Eaton,
W-6 0 0 21.17 -18.92 0 0 12.12 11.07
1975), in our study a gradient of 0.63 psi/ft as used based
on the DST result at well W-1 W-7 0 0 5.38 9.80 0 0 24.04 18.88
Minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal
stress (Figure 13) are estimated using the poro-elastic The outcomes (Figure 14) of the 3-D geomechanical
model (Fjaer et al., 1999). modelling, revealed a normal to overlapping stress regime
and allowed to get the spatial distribution of the stress
magnitude even when there is no borehole data, which
could help to build a pre-geomechanical model before
drilling in that areas, by the estimation of possible stresses
magnitudes.
Fig. 14. Horizon slice of pore presse magnitude (top left);
vertical stress magnitude (top right); minimum horizontal stress
magnitude (bottom left); maximum horizontal stress (bottom
right).
Minimum and maximum density necessary to ensure the
stability of the well during drilling have been estimated
from pore pressure and stress magnitude. Quality control
between 1-D geomehcanical results and 3-D
geomechanical results show a good matching between the
two outputs (Figure 15)
Fig. 15. Results of the estimation of the mud necessary fo
hydraulic fracturing and to ensure the wellbore stability during
drilling at the well W-1, 1-D geomehcnaical model (Blue); 3D
geomehcnaical model (Red); minimum mud density (Track 2);
maximum mud density (Track 2); density of the fracking mud
(Track3).
The outcomes (Figure 16) showed the fracturing density
varies between 3.0 g/cc at the edge of the seismic volume
to 3.5 g/cc in the middle of the seismic cube.
Fig. 16. Spatial variations of the fracturing density in (psi).
3. CONCLUSIONS
 The results of the 3-D geomechanical modelling
are satisfactory and promising, especially in the
case of a future development plan for the study
region.
 The use of rock physics was very beneficial and
allowed us to estimate the missing logs in certain
wells.
 The seismic inversion gave a better spatial
distribution of the elastic parameters used during
3-D modelling.
 3D- geomechanical model using seismis data
overcomes the lack of data between the wells and
avoids interpolation between the different
parameters.
 Core data will be very useful to calibrate the
model and add more credibility to the results, for
future development plans in the study area.
REFERENCES
Abbas, A. K., Al-Asadi, Y. M., Alsaba, M., Flori, R. E.,
& Alhussainy, S. (2018, January). Development of a
geomechanical model for drilling deviated wells through
the Zubair formation in Southern Iraq. In SPE/IADC
Middle east drilling technology conference and
exhibition. OnePetro.
Azevedo, L., Nunes, R., Pereira, M. J., Soares, A.,
Guerreiro, L., & Caeiro, M. H. (2014, November). 3D
geomechanical models inverted from pre-stack seismic
data. In Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference. OnePetro.
Eaton, B. A. (1975, September). The equation for
geopressure prediction from well logs. In Fall meeting of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. OnePetro.

Fjaer, E., & Holt, R. M. (1999, May). Stress and stress

release effects on acoustic velocities from cores, logs and
seismics. In SPWLA 40th Annual Logging Symposium.
OnePetro.

Gassmann, F. (1951). Elastic waves through a packing of

spheres. Geophysics, 16(4), 673-685.

Richards, P. G., & Aki, K. (1980). Quantitative

seismology: theory and methods (Vol. 859). San
Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Sengupta, M., Dai, J., Volterrani, S., Dutta, N., Rao, N.

S., Al-Qadeeri, B., & Kidambi, V. K. (2011). Building a
seismic-driven 3D geomechanical model in a deep
carbonate reservoir. In SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts 2011 (pp. 2069-2073). Society of
Exploration Geophysicists.

Turpin, P., Gonzalez-Carballo, A., Bertini, F., &

Lefeuvre, F. (2003). Velocity volume and time/depth
conversion approach during Girassol field development.
In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts
2003 (pp. 2179-2182). Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.