to 1 IntroductionrockPhYsics
Albeft Einstein
1.1 Introduction
such as porosity, The sensitivityof seismicvelocitiesto critical reservoirparameters, has lithofacies,pore fluid type, saturation,and pore pressure, been recognizedfor many transformsand seismictorockproperty years.However,the practical need to quantify their uncertaintieshas become most critical over the past decade,with the enormous improvementin seismic acquisitionand processingand the need to interpretampliand reservoir monitoring. tudes for hydrocarbon detection, reservoir characterization, hasbeenthe focus of relations the Discoveringand understanding seismictoreservoir r o c k p h y s i c sr e s e a r c h . One of our favorite examplesof the needfor rock physicsis shown in Plate I ' l. lt is a seismic PP reflectivity map over a submarine fan, or turbidite system. We can begin to interpret the image without using much rock physics, becauseof the striking and recognizable shapeof the f'eature.A sedimentologistwould tell us that the main channel (indicated by the high amplitude) on the left third of the image is likely f'eecler to be massive,clean, wellsorted sand  good reservoir rock. It is likely to be cutting through shale,shown by the low amplitudes.So we might proposethat high amplitudes correspondto good sands,while the low amplitudes are shales' Downflow in the lobe environment, however, the story changes.Well control tells us that on the right side of the image, the low amplitudescorrespondto both shale and In clean sand the sandsare transparent. this part ofthe image the bright spots are the sands.So, what is going on? poor, shalerich many of theseresultsin termsof the interplayof sedimentologic We now understand and diagenetic influences. The clean sands on the left (Plate l. I ) are very slightly cemented,causing them to have higher acousticimpedancethan the shales.The clean sandson the right are uncemented,and thereforehave virtually the sameimpedanceas the shales.However, on the right, there are more facies associatedwith lower energy
2
II
Introduction rockphysics to deposition, and these tend to be more poorly sorted and clayrich. We know fiom laboratory work and theory that poor sorting can also influence impedance. In the turbidite system in Plate l.l both the clean, slightly cementedsand and the clean uncemented sandare oilsaturated. Thesesands haveessentially sameporosityancl the composition, yet they have very different seismic signatures. This exampleillustrates needto incorporate the rock physicsprinciplesinto seismic interpretation, and reservoirgeophysicsin general.Despite the excellentseismic quality and wellcontrol, the correctinterpretation requiredquantifyingthe connection between geologyand seismicdata.A purelycomelational approach. instance for using neuralnetworksor geostatistics. would not havebeenso successful. O u r g o a l i n t h i s f i r s t c h a p l e ri s t o r e v i e ws o m eo f ' t h e b a s i cr o c k p h y s i c sc o n c e p t s that are critical fbr reservoirgeophysics. Although the cliscussion not exhaustive, is we assess strengths, the weaknesses, common pitfalls of some currently usedmethods, and and we make specific tecommendationsfor seismictorockpropertytransforms for mapping of lithology, porosity, and fluids. Severalof these rock physics methods are furtherdiscussedand applied in Chapters2, 3, and5 .
1.2
Solution
to the geologic o[ well,logs and cores' coupled Rock physicsdiagnosticanalysis. ceflain aspects rational velocityporosity relations' model, usually r.uo, tl *ore arehighlightedin this section' Theimportanceofvelocityporosityrelationsappliestootherrockphysicsproblems'
a s w e l l . E v e n s e i s m i c p n , " n u i o a n a l y s i s , w h i c h w e d i s c u s s i n t h e natxthe Gassmanne n d s e tsection,dep We can start to see this by looking the velocityporosity relation' on Mavko and in the fbrm (Zimmerman' 1991; (1951)relation,whicir can be represented 1998): Mukerji, 1995; Mavko et al"
t
Krn.k
l
Kmincr"l
o
K6
rock' the mineral' and the saturated and (4 are the bulk moduli of where Krn.p,Krnincral' o"" mndttlusis is space rhepore modurus
[1"i,ffi;;:r#",
iii"o,,ryJT*"11',Til'::"li:""":'l;;;[:;"f :::H:::'il"'ffi :; ffi ffii I #.' *;;;*'"* Iater.n : j:::jT lJ"ff ce' j'Ji';":: )He
V . >. K, L Ko..,,'
;"il;;;,
liiJ";'T directlv ", changes :ii,::: ontheratioorpore depends "':il fluid to pore ::i;:::iJJ,'""i ".,".to) k at jl fluids' i,' r)o c aresorthave large ffi ;; ;:: J' :'J ;;;J; uro.r,Rosth :l::::i'1"'"'1" ;,:T J:'Tl: T:T.ffi pore to sensitivitv a rhat
o cmrll seismic
::ffi:lli:'ritr"i;.;o
weencounterthelinkbetweenfluidsubstitutionandvelocityporosityrelationsin
:ffi:'" i,T,T::,il[
which
;:*i"';ffi;;;'"ip'"s
bounds on 1.2.1 Background elastic
Webeginwithadiscussionofupperandlowerboundsontheelasticmoduliofrocks. Theboundsprovideausefulanclelegantframeworkforvelocityporosityrelations' Many..eff'ectivemedium,,modelshavebeenpublished,attemptingtodescribe theoreticallytheeftectiveelasticmoduliofrocksandsediments.(Forareview,see
4 
Introduction rockphysics to
3K, = .z
o
q
Upper bound
,7\
K2
Figure 1'2 Conceptrral illustration bounds the effective of fbr elastic bulk modLrlus a mixtureof of two materials.
Mavko et al., 1998.)Some models approximatethe rock as an elastic block of mineral perturbed by holes. These are often ref'erredto as "inclusion models." Others try to describethe behaviorof the separate elasticgrainsin contact.Theseare sometimes called"granularmedium models"or "contactmodels."Regardless the approach, of the models generallyneed to specity threetypes of infbrmation:(1) the volume fiactions of the various constituents, the elasticmoduli of the various phases, (2) and (3) the geometric details of how the phasesare arrangedrelative to each other. In practice,the geometricdetailsof the rock and sedimenthaveneverbeen adequately incorporated into a theoretical model. Attempts always lead to approximations and simplifications, some betterthan others. When we specify only the volume fractions of the constituents and their elastic moduli, without geometricdetailsof their arrangement, then we can predict only the upper and lower bounds on the moduli and velocities of the composite rock. How_ ever, the elastic bounds are extremely reliable and robust, and they suffer little from the approximationsthat haunt most of the geometryspecific effectivemediummoclels. Furthermore,since well logs yield infbrmation on constituentsand their volume fractions, but relatively little about grain and pore microstructure,the bouncls turn out to be extrernely valuablerock physicstools. Figure 1.2 illustratesthe conceptfor a simple mixture of two constltuents. These might be two different mineralsor a minerarplus fluid (water,oil, or gas).At any given volume fraction of constituentsthe efl'ectivemodulus of the mixture will fall between the bounds(somewhere alongthe verticaldashed line in the figure),but its precise value dependson the geometric details. we use, for example, terms like ..stiff pore shapes,, and "sofi pore shapes" to describe the geometric variations. Stiffer grain or pore shapescausethe value to be higher within the allowablerange; softer grain or pore shapes causethe value to be lower.
5 
The Voigt and Reuss bounds the but The simplest, not necessarily best,boundsarethe Voigt ( 1910)and Reuss(1929) bound on the effective elastic modulus, My, of a mixture of bounds. The Voigt upper i N m a t e r i a o h a s e ss l
tvtv:lfiMi
i I
(l.l)
wrtn f the volume fiaction of the lth constituent M i the elasticmodulusof the lth constituent (i.e.,a rock) that Thereis no way that naturecan put togethera mixture of constituents is elastically stiJJerthan the simple arithmetic averageof the constituentmoduli given because by the Voigt bound. The Voigt bound is sometimescalled the isostrain average, it gives the ratio of averagestressto averagestrain when all constituentsare assumed to have the same strain. The Reu.rsknver brtund of the effective elastic modulus, MB, is
M*
r_$r; l', M,
(1.2)
There is no way that nature can put together a mixture of constituentsthat is elastically softer than this harmonic averageof moduli given by the Reuss bound. The average,becauseit gives the ratio of Reuss bouncl is sometimes called the i.sos/re.rs constituentsare assumedto have the same averagestressto average strain when all stress. any modulus: Mathematicallythe M in the Voigt and Reussfbrmulas can represent the bulk modulusK, the shearmodulusp, Young'smodulusE, etc. However,it makes of most senseto compute the Voigt and Reussaverages only the shearmodulus,M : lt, and the bulk modulus,M : K, and then computethe other moduli from these,using the rulesof isotropiclinear elasticity. the Figure 1.3 showsschematically boundsfor elasticbulk and shearmoduli, when liquid or gas. In this case,the lower bound corresponds is one of the constituents a of to a suspension the particlesin the fluid, which is an excellentmodel fbr very soft sedimentsat low effective stress.Note that the lower bound on shearmodulus is zero, as long as the volume tiaction of fluid is nonzero. of exactly the effectivemoduli of a suspension solid The Reussaveragedescribes will turn out to be the basis lor describingcertain types ol grains in a fluid. This the It clasticsediments. also describes moduli of "shaltered"materialswhere solid by are fragments completelysurrounded the pore fluid.
6 
Introduction rockphysics to
Itt
Ex,
= .=
o q o
E
Upper bound
v\
K2
Lower bound
Itz
F i g u r e 1 .C o n c e p t u la u s t r a t i o n o f u p p e r a n c l l o w e r b o u n d s t o b u l k a n d s h e a r m o d u l i 3 i ll lbra mixture two materials, of whichis a fluid. of one When all constituents gases liquids with zeroshearmodulus,thenthe are or
Reuss average gives the effectivemoduli of the mixture,exactly. ln contrast the Reuss to average which describes numberof realphysicalsystems, a real tsotropicmixturescan neverbe as stiffas the Voigr bound(exceptfor the singlephaseend members).
HashinShtrikman
bounds
The best bounds fot an isotropic elastic mixture, defined as giving the narrowest possible range of elastic moduli without specitying anything about the geometries of the constituents,are the Hashinshtrikman bouncls(Hashin and Shtrikman, 1963). For a mixture of two constituents,the Hashinshtrikman bounds are siven bv
6HS+:
H(+
K1 f
.fz
(Kz Kt) '+ ft(Kt+4ttt13)l ( t t z t t ) ' +2ftKt fz. +2pr)/l5pr(Kr + 4prl3)l (1.3)
U"'with
: ltt +
Kt, Kz bulk moduli of individual phases l.Lt,tL2shearmoduli of individualphases .fl,/2 volume fiactions of individual phases Upper and lower boundsarecomputedby interchangingwhich material is subscripted I and which is subscripted2. Generally,the expressions give the upper bound when the stiffbst material is subscripted I in the expressionsabove, and the lower bound when the softestmaterial is subscripted I . The physical interpretation of a material whose bulk modulus would fall on one of the Hashinshtrikman boundsis shown schematically Figure 1.4. The in spaceis filled by an assembly of spheresof material 2, eachsurroundedby a spherical shell of material l. Each sphere anclits shelr have precisely the volume fractions.ll andf2.
7 
.l
l { j
j
I
I I
of for bounds bulkmodulus a of interpreration theHashinShtrikman 1.4 Figure Physical material. twophase The upper bound is realized when the stiffer material forms the shell; the lower bound, when it is in the core. A more generalform of the Hashinshtrikman bounds,which can be applied to more (Berryman, 1995),can be written as than two phases KHS+ A(Fn,"^),KHS : A(trmin) pHS+  f((Ku^, 4n'o*)),FHS : f(((K.in, l'n'i")) where
\()l)
(1.4)
4 \ '3
\xtrt  4zl3l
f ( : ): (
t \l  : _ ) \ / l ( r )+ z / u / 9 K+ 8 \
/
1 ( K . t r 6 : ; l :2J1l t \ \ hl
The brackets (.) indicate an averageover the medium, which is the sameas an average over the constituents,weighted by their volume fractions. The separation between the upper and lower bounds (VoigtReuss or HashinShtrikman) depends on how elastically diflerent the constituents are. As shown in Figure 1.5, the bounds are ofien tairly similar when mixing solids, since the elastic moduli of common minerals are usually within a factor of two of each other. Since 195 (e.g.,Biot, 1956;Gassmann, l; Kusterand Toksciz' moclels many effectivemedium modulus, it is often useful (and adequate)to 1974) assume a homogeneousmineral representa mixed mineralogy with an "averagemineral" modulus, equal either to one of the boundscomputed for the mix of minerals or to their average(,yus+ + MHS)12.
8 77 76 a 7 5
lntroduction rockphysics to
80
Calcite dolomite +
70 9 6 0
Calcite water +
?,0 Ezr
i 7 2 E ' 7 1 70 69
*uo E+o
! 3 0 E  2 0 t0 0
Upper bound
0.2
0.8
o.2
0.8
Figure1'5 on the left, a mixturc of two minerals.The upperand lower bounds are closewhen the constituents elasticallysimilar.On the right, a mixture of mineraland wlter. are The upperand lower bolrndsare lar apart when the constituents elasticallydifferent. are
On the otherhand,when the constituents quite ditl'erent suchas minerals are and pore fluids  then the bounds become quite separated, and we lose some of the predictive value. Nole that when pr,n;n 0. then KHS is the sameas the Reussbound. In this : case, the Reuss or Hashinshtrikman lower bounds describeexacrly the moduli of a suspension grainsin a pore ffuid. Thesealso describe of the moduli of a mixture of fluids and/orgases.
I 
o
r , a a
8c
a a
A
E
4ooo
oo!
r . l
'6 6
.t
/J \ , \
Voigt avg.
3ooo
\'ir+at':S t , . Reuss bound \ /
+ i
Newlydeposited cleansand
6q
(%) Porosity
o : suspensions rotre ::l:*or o . sandstone claylree sandstone clavbearinq
compared sedirnents, of porosity a variety watersaturated fbr versus velocity 1.6 Figure Pwave (1956). (1992), (1986) Hamilton and Han Data bor.rnds. arefiom Yin withtheVoigt,Reuss
call this porosityof the newly deposited We sometimes 5565Vo. high initial porosiries, that give sediment the critical porosit), (Nur, 1992).Upon burial, the various processes  must move the the sediment strength efl'ectivestress,compaction, and cementing the diagenesis, rock off sediments the Reussbound. We observethat with increasing properties fall along steep trajectories that extend upward from the Reuss bound at critical porosity, toward the mineral end point at zero porosity. We will seebelow that thesediagenetictrends can be describedonce again using the bounds.
llan's empirical relations Figure L7 shows typical plots of seismic Vp and V5 vs. porosity for a large set of labo(Han, 1986).All of the datapoints sandstones ratory ultrasonicdatafor watersaturated shown are at 40 MPa effective pressure.In both plots, we seethe usual generaltrend of decreasingvelocity with increasingporosity. There is a great deal of scatteraround the trencl,which we know from Han's work is well correlatedwith the clay content. Han describedthis velocityporosityclay behavior with the empirical relations:
Vp:5.596.9302.13C V s : 3 . 5 2  4 . 9 1 0 1 . 8 9 C
(1.5)
10 r
Introduction rockphysics to
. r x . r
a.
E +.s
5 s'
.
3
o
r r ^ . .. ro f. ^ i ^
taa
.
^^ a t
^
taaa ,a
g
. . ^ rjl
2.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
1.5 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Porosity
Porosity
Figure Velocity 1.7 porosity watersaturated versus fbr sandstones40MPa.Dataareultrasonic at measurements Han(1986). fiom
where the velocities are in km/s, @ is the porosity, and C is the clay volume fraction. These relations can be rewritten sliehtlv in the form
(l 6)
which can be thought of as a seriesof parallel velocityporosity trends, whose zeroporosity interceptsdependon the clay content.Thesecontoursofconstant clay content are illustrated in Figure 1.8, and are essentiallythe steepdiagenetictrends mentioned in Figure 1.6.Han's clean (clayfree)line mimics the diagenetic trend for clean sands, while Han's more clayrich contours mimic the diagenetictrends fbr dirtier sands. Vernik and Nur (1992) and Vernik (1997) found similar velocityporosity relations,and were able to interpret the Hantype contours in terms of petrophysical classifications of siliciclastics. Klimentos (1991) also obtainedsimilar empirical relationsbetween velocity, porosity, clay content and permeability for sandstones. As with any empirical relarions, (1.5) and (1.6) are mosr meaningfulfor equarions the data from which they were derived.It is dangerous exlrapolate to rhem to other situations. althoughthe concepts that porosityand clay havelargeimpactson p and Swavevelocitiesare quite generalfor clasticrocks. When usingrelations like these, is very imponantto consider coupledeffects it the of porosity and clay. If two rocks have the same porosily. but different amounts of clay,thenchances good that the high clay rock haslower velocity.But if porosity are decreases clay volume increases. as then the high clay rock mighr have a higher v e f o c i t y ( S e ea l s o S e c t i o n . 2 . 3 . ) . 2
11
I
volume Glay
. a ^ G tr e"IOVo 1F20% 2W30% 3(F40%
S . 4
3.5
2.5 2 0 0.1 0.2 Porosity Figure1,8 A subsetof Han's data frorn Figure 1.7,sortedby clay content.The empiricalrelations, ( equations I .5) and ( I .6), can be thoughtof as a seriesof parallellines as shown,all with the same slope,but with differentclay contents. 0.3 0.4
Distinction between cementing and sorting trends A number of workers (e.g., Dvorkin and Nur, 1996) have recognizedthat the slope of the velocityporosity trend (or impedanceporositytrend) in sandstones highly variis able, and dependslargely on the geologic processthat is controlling porosity.The steep velocityporosity trends shown in Figures 1.7 and 1.8 fbr sandstones representative are i.e. of porosity variations controlled by diagenesi.s, porosity reduction due to pressure solution, compaction, and cementation.Hence, we often see steep velocityporosity trends when examining data spanning a great range of depths or ages. The classical empirical trends of Wyllie et al. ( 1956),RaymerHuntGardner (Raymer et al., 1980), Han ( 1986) and RaigaClemenceau al. (1988), all show versionsof the steep,diageet netically controlled velocityporosity trend. On the other hand, porosity variations resulting from variations in sorting and clay content tend to yield much flatter velocityporosity trends.That is, porosity controlled is by sedimentaliorz generallyexpectedto yield flatter trends,which we sometimesrefer to as depositional trends. Data setsfrom narrow depth rangesor individual reservoirs often (though not always) show this behavior. This distinction of diageneticvs. depositionaltrends as a generalizedvelocityporosity model for clasticsis illustratedschematicallyin Figure 1.9.We havefound that the diagenetictrends,which connectthe newly depositedsedimenton the Reussbound with the mineral point, can often be describedwell using an upper bound. In fact, we we sometimesref'erto it as a modified upper bound, because use it to describea mixture of the newly depositedsedimentat critical porosity with additional mineral, insteadof describing a mixture of mineral and pore fluid. The modified upper HashinShtrikman bound approximating the diagenetictrend for clean sandsis shown by the heavy black curve in Figure 1.9. The thinner black curves below (and parallel to) the clean sand
12 r
Introduction rockphysics to
5500
\\
0.2 Porosity
0.3
0.5
Figure 1.9 Generalized clasticmodcl.Sediments deposited are alongthe suspension line.Clean, wellsorted will haveinitial (critical) porosity sands oi0.4. Poorlysorted sediments havea will smaller criticalporosity. Burial,compaction diagenesis movedataoff the suspension and line. Sediments constant of shaliness sortingand variable or age(or degree diagenesis) alongthe of lall (black)cenrenting trends. Sedirrrents ofconstant agebut variable shatliness sortingwill tall along or the (gray) sortingtrends. line represent the diagenetic trends fbr more clayrich sands. They are computed agair using the HashinShtrikman upper bound, connecting the lower critical porosities fbl mix
more clayrich sands with the elastically softer mineral moduli for quartzclay
tures. These parallel trends are essentially the same as Han's empirical lines, shown ir
Figure1.8. We observe empirically that the modified upper HashinShtrikman bound describes fairly well lhe variation velocitywith porosityduringcompaction ol anddiagenesis of sandstones. While it is difficult to derivefrom firstprinciples, heuristic a argument for the resultis thatdiagenesis the stiffestway to mix a young sediment is with additional (i.e..thestiffestway to reduce porosity);an upperbounddescribes stiflest mineral the way to mix two constituents. A slight improvement over the modified upper HashinShtrikman bound as a diag netic trend for sandscan be obtained by steepening highporosity end. An eff'ecti the (Dvorkin and Nur, 1996) for cemet way to do this is to appendDvorkin's model ing of grain contacts, illustratedin Figure l.l0 (discussed as more in Chapter2). T
13
I
4500
Diagenetic
4000 3500
PorositY
end the trt model thehighporosity o1' modified contlctcement Dvorkin's 1 Figure ,10 Appending with the intproves agreement sands. bound Hashinshtrikman contactcementmodel capturesthe rapid increasein elastic stiffnessof a sand,without much change in porosity as the first bit of cement is added. Very difl'erent processes such as mechanicalcompactionand pressuresolution can yield very similar trends 2003). (J. M. Florez,personalcommunication. The depositional or sorting trends can be describedby a seriesof modified Hashin Shtrikmun lovter bounds (gray curves in Figure L9). The lowest gray curve is the The addisurface). line, indicatinga depth of zero (i.e.,at the depositional suspension older and older line indicate diagenetically tional gray curves above the suspension sediments.Each is a line of constant depth, but variable texture, sorting, and/or clay content.(Avsethet al.,20OO,also ref'erto theseas constantcementlines.)Moving ttl the right on the gray sorting curves correspondsto cleaner,better sorted sands,while moving to the left correspondsto more clayrich or more poorly sortedsands.Note that as we move from the right to the left along thesetrends, we are simply crossing Han's contours fiom clean sandsto clayrich sands. The datafrom Han ( 1986)'which dataexamples. Figure I .l I showssomelaboratory averagetrend, dominated by span a great range of depths and ages,show the steepest Data fiom the Troll (Blangy, 1992),Oseberg,and two North Seafields "B" cliagenesis. textural variations. and "C" have flatter trends,dominatedby sedimentationcontrolled 'A" field are from a nalrow depth range, but in this The data from the North Sea case the porosity is diagenetically controlled, related to varying amounts of chlorite, and this gives a steep slope, close to Han's. The secondplot in Figure l.l I shows
14 
lntroduction rockphysics to
4 s'3 2 1 0
l''
rssltx
"**__**:
0 0 . 0 5 0 . 1 0 . 1 5 0 . 2 0 . 2 50 . 3 0 . 3 5 0 . 4 Porosity
Figure1.11 Left: Trendsin yp versusporosity,showinga broadrangeofbehaviors.Steeptrends (Han; N. SeaA) are dominatedby diagenesis. Flattertrendsare dominatedby texturalvariations. trendsand Right: Another comparison llelds showingthe differencebetweendiagenetic of sedimentological trends.
another comparison of North Sea fields showing the difference between diagenetic trends and depositional trends. In both cases,the data are from fairly narow depth ranges. More detailed theory and applicationsof various rock physics models for characterization of sandshale systemsare presentedin Chapter 2. Porosityhasan enormousimpacl on P and Swavevelocities. . Usually, an increase porositywi I I resultin a decrease P andSwavevelocities. in of Often the correlation is good, allowing porosity to be estimatedfrom impedance. . For sandstones. clay causesscalteraround the velocityporositytrend. although yield systematic and somewhat data groupedby nearly constantclay sometimes parallel trends (Figure 1.8). In consolidated sandstone$,clay tends to decrease slightly velocityand increase VplVsratio.ln unconsolidated sands, clay sometimes stiffensthe rock. . Variations in pore shapealso causevariable velocityporosily trends.This is usually modeledin terms of round vs. cracklike aspectratio for pores.We now understand textural variations,such as sorting, lead to specific, that depositioncontrolled similar variations in clastics. Increasing clay and poorer sofling act roughly in the directionof smalleraspectratios. . Popularrela{ions. like thoseof Han ( 1986).Wyllie et al. (195$,and Raymerel a1. (1980), describe steep velocity*porosity trends (as in Figure 1.6), which. when for correct. indicate conditions that are fiavorable mapping porosity from velocity.
15
I
These are only appropriatewhen porosity is controiled by diagenesis.often seen overgreat depthranges. Theserelations can be misleading understanding for lateral variations velocity within narrow depth ranges. of They shouldcertainly neverbe usedfor fluid substiturion analysis. . we expectvery shallow velocityporositytrendswhen porosity varies texturally, becauseof sorting and clay contenf. These trends, when appropriate,indicate conditionswhere mappingporosityfrom velocity is difficult. However,thesetexrurally controlled rocks tend to be elastically sofrer and have a larger sensitivity and pore pressffe. and rhesecharacrerisrics advanrageous 4D are for ::u:o,::.Ou'0,
(1.7)
where @is the porosity, Ka.y is the dry rock bulk modulus, Kminerar the mineral bulk is modulus, and Kq is the pore spacestiffnessdefined by:
iJltpore yf Vporc
do
(1.8)
Here, vpo.e the pore volume, and o is the increment of hydrostatic conlining stress is tiom the passingwave. Poorly consolidatedrocks, rocks with microcracks. and rocks at low effective pressure are generally soft and compressible and have a small K4. Stiff rocks that are well cemented,lacking microcracks, or at high effective pressure have a large K4. In terms of the popular but idealized ellipsoidal crack models, lowaspectratiocracks have small K4 and rounder largeaspectratio pores have large K4. In simple terms we can write approximate\y Kq x oKmineral where cy is aspectratio. (This approximation is best at low porosity.)
16
I
lntroduction rockphysics to
v v
.= =
B ) \  ,  0
.
KolKnt 0.1 
Porosity Figure1.12 Norrrralized rock bulk modulusversusporosity,with contoursof constant pore space stifTness. PointsA and B con'espond two difl'erent kl dry rocks at the sameporosity.PointsA' and B' are the corresponding watersaturatcd values.The sensitivityto fluid changes proportionalto the is contourspacing.
t
K'*
t
1(",^
a
K 4, I K nuiaKnineral/Kminerat Kflui.t
(l el
or approximately as
l
K.ur
a
K*lK11ai,1
Krirrc.rl
(l.ri)
where Ksu;.1 the porefluidbulk modulus.Comparingequations I .7) and ( L 10), wr is ( can seethat changing the pore fluid has the eff'ectof changing the porespacestiffness From equation(1.10) we see also the wellknown result that a stiff rock, with larg porespacestiflhess Ka, will have a small sensitivity to fluids, and a soft rock, wit small K4, will have a largersensitivityto fluids. Figure 1.12showsa plot of normalizedrock bulk modulusK/K,,,ir"rut versusporoi ity (where K : Ksator K,r,y) computed for various values of normalized porespac stiffnessK4 f K,,,,'erat.Since and K11u;,t K4 always appearadded together (as in equatio (1.10)), then fluid substitutioncan be thought of as computing the change L(Ka Knuio): AKnui,rand jumping the appropriate number of contours in the graph. Fr the contour interval in Figure 1.12, the difference between a dry rock and a wate saturatedrock is three contours, anywhere in the plot. For the example shown, tl startingpoint A was one of Han's ( 1986)dry sandstone datapoints,with effectived
17
I
1,3 Fluid substitution analysis :0.44 and porosityQ:0.20. To saturate, move up rock bufk modulusK,try/Kn,in..ul we :0.06, or three contours.The watersaturated the amount LKnuiaf K,nerat ntoduluscan be readoff directly as K,rt/Krin.,ar:0.52, point A'. The second exampleshown(points BB') is for the same two pore fluids and the same porosity. However, the change in rock stiffnessduring fluid substitutionis much larger. Pitfall Seismicsensitivityto pore fluids is not uniquely,relared porosity. to Solution seismic ffuid sensitivityis determined a combinarion porosityand porespace by of stiffness. softerrock will havea largersensitivityto fluid substirudon A thana stiffler rock al the sameporosity. Figure l. 12.we can seelhat On regionswherethe contours are far apartwill havea largesensitivity fluids.and regionswherethe contoursare to
K,,,
Krnineral Kro,
Kory
Kmineral Kory
(1.1r)
(1.12)
Gassmann'sequations(1.11)and(1.12)predictthatforanisotropicrock,therockbulk modulnswill changeif the fluid changes, the rock shearmoduluswill not. but These dry and saturated moduli, in turn, are related to Pwave velocity Vp : and Swavevelocity Vs : nl1t/j,where p is the bulk density given trTtrTTlRldn by
P: Q P n u i ,+ ( l t d)Pn',n.rrt
( r. 1 3 )
In equations(1.7)(l.ll), d is normally interpreted the rotal porosity,although in as shaly sandsthe proper choice of porosity is not clear. We sometimesfind a better fit to field observationswhen eflective porosity is used instead.The uncertainty stemsfrom Gassmann's assumption that the rock is monomineralic, which casethe porosity is in unambiguouslyall the spacenot occupiedby rnineral.Clayrich sandstones actually
18 n
Introduction rockphysics to violate the monomineralicassumption, we end up forcing the Gassmann so relations to apply by adapting the porosity and/or the effective mineral properties.Should the clay be consideredpart of the mineral frame'l If so, does the bound water inside the clay communicatesufficientlywith the other fiee pore fluids to satisfy Gassmann's assumptionof equilibratedporefluid pressure, should the bound water be considered or part of the mineral fiame? Alternatively, should the clay be consideredpart of the pore fluid'? If so, then the functional Gassmannporosity is actually larger than the total porosity, but the pore fluid should be considereda muddy suspension containing clay particles.
r),
Klil
Krri'.rrt ,(lr''
,(;l,].
 K;il.) d(Kn,rn.,ur
Knrincrar Klii
where K{j] and ,<'{l] are the rock bulk moduli saturatedwith fluid l and fluid 2, an ,fll]o and ,f''?,]o the bulk moduli of the fluids themselves. are Step 3: Leave the shearmodulus unchanged:
(2\
laslt 
{1 )
Fsrl
Step 4: Rememberto correct the bulk density for the fluid change:
p ( 2) r t t t + Q ( p f l , u _ p l ' , ] , u )
Step 5: Reassemble velocities: the
rv/ Q ) P
. ]"n) ,,', /
V
tt(2) 
"s
u'i^lf ,,.,
19 
increases. . The density and bulk modulus mostreservoir of fluidsdecrease temperature as i ncreases. The Batzlewang formuras describe empiricar the dependence gas,oir. and of bnnepropenies temperature. on pressure, composition. and The Batzlewang bulk moduliare rheadiabaticmoduli,which we believe are appropriate wavepropagation. for ' In contrast, pVT dataare isothermal.Isothermal standard modulican be 20vo for oil. and a factorof 2 too row for gas.For brine,the rwo do not differ ff"r":
20 r
Introduction rockphysics to approximation to the "dry rock." Hence, laboratory measurementsof gassaturated rocks with Pp,,r.: I bar can be treatedas the dry rock properties,except fbr extremely idatedmaterials. unconsol Pitfall in rock properries placeof the "dry rock" It is not correctsimply to put gassaturated and Biot equations. or "dry frame" moduli in the Gassmann
$olution
Treat gas asjust anotherfluid when computingfluid substitution.
Low frequencies Gassntann's relations are strictly vaLid only for low frequencies. They are derived throughoutthe pore spacehave under the assumptionthat waveinducedpore pressures pressure waveinduced during a seismicperiod.The highfiequency time to equilibrate gradientsbetween cracks and pores that characterizethe "squirt mechanism" (Mavko and Nur, 1975; O'Connell and Budiansky,1977;Mavko and Jizba, 1991),for examrelations, and are the primary reasonwhy of ple, violate the assumptions Gassmann's relationsusuallydo not work well fbr fluid effectsin laboratoryultrasonic Gassmann's can also The inhibitedflow of pore fluidsbetweenmicro and macroporosity velocities. assumptions. violate Gassmann's The critical are What frequencies low enough?This is difficult to answerprecisely. fiequency is determined by the characteristictime for fluids to diffuse in and out of One rough estimatecan be written as O'Connell and cracks and grain boundaries. ( B u d i a n s k y 1 9 7 7 )d i d :
. +
/ \(llIrt
'
:
,. 1 A minerrl(I
(1.14)
where a is the crack aspectratio and 4 is the fluid viscosity. The crack aspect ratio, is fluid substitution expectedto work well at of course,is poorly known. Gassmann significantlylower than.f.qLrirt. seismicfrequencies that suggest,f,qui,t 101Hz for wrterJones(1983) compileclscantlaboratoryclata can drastiin sandstones. Obviously,slight changes the rock microstructure saturated cally changethis. We do expectthat the fiequencyshouldscalewith viscosityas shown will decreasef.,lui.r. in equation( I . l4), so that higher viscosities We believe that Gassmann'srelationsare usually appropriatefbr 3D surfaceseismi< oils with very heavy(highviscosity) would includereservoirs frequencies. Exceptions a n d r o c k sw i t h t i g h t m i c r o p o r o s i t y . Logs, at frequencies of l20 kHz, unfbrtunately fall right in the expected transi an, relationssometimeswork quite well at log frequencies, tion range.Gassmann's
21 r
1.3 Ftuid substitution analysis sometlmesnot. Nevertheless, recommendation to use Gassmann's our is relationsat logging and surfaceseismicfrequencies unlessthere are specificreasons the conto trary. The recommendedprocedurefbr relating laboratory work to the field is to use dry ultrasonicvelocitiesand saturate them theoretically using the Gassmann relations.
Isotropic rocks Gassmann's relationsare strictly valid only fbr isotropic rocks. Brown and Korringa (1915)havepublishedan anisotropic form, but evenin laboratory experiments, thereis seldom a complete enough characterizationof the anisotropy to apply the Brown and Korringa relations. Real rocks are almost alwaysat leastslightly anisotropic, making Gassmann's relations inappropriate the strictestsense. in We usually apply fluid substitution analysis to Vp and V5 measured a singledirectionand ignore the anisotropy. in This can sometimes lead to ovetpredictionand at other times underpredictionof the fluid effects (Sava et al.' 2000). Nevertheless,the best approach,given the limited data available in the field, is to useGassmann's relations measured and 75, eventhoughthe rocks are on Vp anisotropic. Single mineralogy Gassmann's relations, like many rock physicsmodels,arederivedassurning homogea neous mineralogy, whose bulk modulus is K,,,1,,",.r1. standardway to proceedwhen The we have a mixed mineralogyis to use an "average mineral." A sirnpleway to estimate the bulk modulusof the average mineral is to computeupper and lower boundsof the mixture of minerals,and take their averaget ! Krrinerat (KHS++ KHS) 12. A commonapproach adapting for Cassmann's relations rockswith mixed mineralLo ogy is to estimate "average"mineral.For example,we might estimate mineral an the bulk modulusas K.;n"rr;ry (KHS++ KHS)/2, whererds+ and KHS arethe Hashin_ Shtrikmanupper and lower boundson bulk modulus for the mineral mix. Another approachis to simply ignore the mixed mineralogy and use the modulus of the dominant mineral, for exampleKmineratK.tu*, for a sand or K.1n.ro, K.o1.;1. ! * for a carbonate. one way to understand impact of theseassumptions by looking the is a t F i g u r e L l 2 . I n t h i s f i g u r e ,t h e G a s s m a n nl u i d s e n s i t i v i t ys p r o p o r r i o n arl o t h e f i contourspacing. When the rock modulusis low relativeto the mineral modulus,the rock is "soft" and the Gassmannrelationspredicr a large sensitivityro porefluid changes: when lhe rock modulusis high relativeto the mineral modulus.the rock is " s t i f f ' a n d G a s s m a n n r e d i c t s s m a l ls e n s i t i v i t yo f l u i d s .H e n c e . i c k i n g p a t p a mineral modulus that is too srifi (i.e., ignoring soft clay) will make the rock look too soft. and thereforepredicr a fluid sensitivirythar is too large. Sengupra (2000t showed that Lhesensitivityof the Cassmann predictionto uncertainty mineral modulusis in small,exceptfor low porosities.
22 
to Introduction rockPhYsics relationsto mixed mineralogyhave to Other approaches generalizingGassmann's been explored theoretically.For example, Brown and Korringa ( 1975) generalizedthe rocks and to the casewherethe pore compressibility problemto anisotropic Gassmann of consequence mixed mineralogy. are and samplecompressibility unequal a possible in Berryman and Milton (199l) solvedthe problem of flLridsubstitution a composite of consisting two porousmedia,eachwith its own mineraland dry fiame bulk moduli. Mavko and Mukerj i ( I 998b) presenteda probabilistic fbrmulation of Gassmann'srelations to account fbr distributions of porosity and dry bulk moduli, arising from natural variability.
Mixed saturation relationswere originally derivedto describethe changein rock modulus Gassmann's fiom one pure saturation to another  from dry to fully brinesaturated,from fully that mixed gasetc. to brinesaturated fully oilsaturated, Domenico ( I 976) suggested if relations, the mixture of can oilbrine saturations also be modeledwith Gassmann's given and densitypnuia fluid with bulk modulus Knuia by phases replaced an efl'ective is by
:.l1_
Sr,r,
Soit K.it
St, Kur
K nu,u
Ko,,'
 \ K1,'ia(r,.y, / :) \ (pnu16(x,.r':))
(1 . 1 s )
P n u i d : S g r r P g u*, S o i l P o i*l S t r p t , :
(r.r6)
bulk moduli, and densities are and Ksas,oil.br, p*".,u;1.n, the saturations, where Sgas.otr.br, to a volume averageand allclws The operator (.) refers of the gas,oil, and brine phases. for more compact expressions,where Knuia(.r, r) and pnu1,1(r, z) are the spatially )', ,)', varying porefluid modulus and density. most widely relationis the procedure equation( I . l5) into Gassmann's Substituting and impedancefor lowfiequency on usedtoday to model fluid eff'ects seismicvelocity field applications. is A problem with mixed fluid phases that velocitiesdependnot only on saturations but also on the spatialdistributionsof the phaseswithin the rock. Equation (1.15) is are only if thegas,oil, andbrinephases mixed uniformly at a very smallscale, applicable so that the different waveinducedincrementsof pore pressurein each phasehave time and equilibrateduring a seismicperiod.Equation(1.15) is the Reuss(1929) to cliffuse averageor "isostress" average,and it yields an appropriateequivalent fluid when all A pore phaseshave the samewaveinducedpore pressure. simple dimensionalanalysis can equilibrate over spatial scales that during a seismic period pore pressures suggests length L. x JrcRn"1affi, where.f is the seismic fiequency, r smaller than a critical are is the permeability, and 4 and Ksu1,1 the viscosity and bulk modulus of the most phase. We ref'er to this state of finescale, unifbrmly mixed fluids as viscous fluid of "uniform saturation." Table 1.1gives someestimates the critical mixing scaleL..
23
I
Tabfe Critical dffision length or patch size.for 1.1 some values of permeabilir,r" and seismic'.freqttency
Frequency l0i) (rnD) Permerbility L. (m)
l0
Permeabilitics in milliDarcv. are In contrast,saturationsthat are heterogeneous over scaleslarger than L. will have porepressure gradients waveinduced that cannotequilibrate during the seismicperiod, and equation (1.15) will fail. We refer to this state as "patchy saturation."Patchy saturationcan easily be causedby fingering of pore fluids and spatial variationsin wettability,permeability,shaliness, etc. The work of Sengupta(2000) suggests that patchy saturationis most likely to occur when there is free gas in the system.Patchy saturationleads to higher velocitiesand impedances than when the same fluids are mixed at a fine scale.The rock modulus with patchy saturationcan be approximatedby Gassmann'srelation, with the mixture of phasesreplacedby the Voigt averageefl'ective fluid (Mavko and Mukerii, 1998):
Kflui,l : SourKgr, * SnilKn;1 * S5rK5,
(l .r 7 )
Equation l.l7 appears be an upperbound,and data seldomfall on it, exceptat very to small gas saturations. Figure  .13 showslowfrequency andSwavevelocities Pversus watersaturation for Estaillades limestone, measured Cadoret(1993), using the resonant by bar technique, near I kHz. The closedcirclesshow datameasured during increasing water saturation via an imbibition processcombined with pressurization and depressurization cycles designed to desolve trapped air. The imbibition data can be accurately described by replacingthe airwater mix with the finescalemixing model, equation (1.15), and putting the average fluid modulusinto Gassmann's equations. (Figure l.l3) show data measured The open circles during drainage. saturations At greater than 80o/o, the Vp fall above the finescale unitorm saturation line but below the patchy upper bound, indicating a heterogeneous somewhatpatchy fluid distrior bution. The V5 data fall again on the uniform fluid line, as expected, since patchy saturation is predicted to have no effect on V5 (Mavko and Mukerji, 1998). Cadoret (1993) used Xray CAT (computerized axial tomography) scans to confirm that the imbibition processdid indeed create saturationsunifbrmly distributed at a fine, submillimeter scale, while the drainage process created saturation patches at a scale of severalcentimeters.
24 
to Introduction rockphysics
Water saturation (1993).Closed circlesshowdataduringirnbibition datafiom Cadoret 1,13 Lowfiequency Figure fluid model (lower bound).Open circles efl'ective with the finescale and are in excellentagreement for patchyfluid distributions saturation or indicatingheterogeneous show dataduring drainage, effbctivefluid (dashed the Voigt averagc line) using greaterthan about807c.The approximation job of estimatingthe exactpatchyupperbound shownby the solid line. a cloes good
Brie and others (1995) presented an empirical fluid mixing equation, which spans the range of finescale to patchy mixing: (KriquiaKsu,)(l ,Sgu,)" f
Knu,o :
l(grs
(l . 1 8 )
where e is an empirical coefficient.When e: I equation(1.18) becomesthe patchy ( r ( u p p e rb o u n d ,e q u a t i o n 1 . 1 7 ) ;w h e n c  > c o e q u a t i o n 1 . 1 8 )g i v e sr e s u l t s e s e m b l i n g (1.15).Valuesof er3 have beenfbund lower bound,equation thoseof the finescale empirically to give a better description of laboratory and simulated patchy behavior is than the more extreme upper bound. In equation ( I . l8), Ky;.,u16the Reussaveragemix of the oil and water moduli. 
1.4
25
E
r@ I
t
E
o
'P
nn,
Webatuck dolomite
Sat.
E Dry
/t
Caution
In soft. poorly consolidated sediments significantcompactioncan occur (see nexL seclion).This causesthe veloctty vs. eftectivepressure r' behaviorto be inelasticand irreversible. with very Iargehysreresis. Laboratory experimentshave indicatedthat the reversiblepressureeffects illustrated in Figure l.14 depend primarily on the dffirenc:e between confining pressure and
26 
Introduction rockphysics to
Bedford limestone
* . ' +.. a Sat. 1E. vP
\
+*++++5
E
Sat.
Dry
Webatuck dolomite
n^,'g.. ut t E
+s;==.=.
's H1\ rs E = !
Dry
sat.  f
*\
300
pore pressure. increase pore pressure An of tendsapproximately cancelthe effect of to pushingopenthe cracksandgrainboundaries, hencedecreasing confiningpressure, and the velocity. Figure 1.15 shows the data from Figure 1.14 replottedto illustratehow increasingptrre pressLredecreases pressures spanned velocities.The sameefTective are by varying pore pressurewith confining pressure(P.,,,,1) fixed. A trivial, but critical, point is that the sensitivityof velocity or impedance presto s u r e ( t h e s l o p e so f t h e c u r v e si n F i g u r e sl . 1 4 a n d l . l 5 ) d e p e n d s n w h a t p a r r o f o the curve we are working on. At low effectivestresses. when cracksare open and grain boundaries are loose, there is large sensitivityto pressure: high effective at pressures. when the rock is stiff, we expect much smaller sensitivity.Relatedto this. there is a limit to the range of pressure changewe can see.For the rocks in F i g u r e s. l 4 a n d l . l 5 , t h e r e i s a l a r g e c h a n g e i n v e l o c i t y f o r a p o r e p r e s s u r e d r o p o f l 200bar Q0 MPal. After that.the cracksareclosedand the frameis stiffened, addiso lional pressure drops might be difficult to detect(exceptfor bubblepoint saturation changes). Numerousauthors(Nur and Simmons,1969;Nur, 197l; Mavko et al., 1995;Sayers, 1988) have shown that thesereversible elastic stressand pore pressureefl'ectscan be describedusing crack and grain contactmodels.Nevertheless, ability to predict our the sensitivity to pre,tsure.from first principles is poor. The current state of the art requiresthat we calibratethe pressure dependence velocity with core measurements. of Furthermore, when calibrating to core measurements, is very important to use dr) it core data, to minimize many of the artifacts of highfrequencydispersion. A convenient way to quantify the dependence,taken from the averageof several samples,is to normalize the velocities for each sample by the highpressurevalue, as shown for some clasticsin Figure I . 16. This causes the curvesto clusterat the highpressurepoint. Then we fit an averagetrend through the cloud, as shown. The velocity
27 
I
'/
1.1
l
/
0.9
I
0
:" \'
0.7
.f tl
0.6
D t
'/ t
0.5
t5 20 25 Effective pressure (Mpa) Svelocity pressure dependence l0
1.1
0.9
0.8
s
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 q r^ ru 15 2n .F .c
JU
35
40
::1::iJI.ilXlij:.",1"Tt
28 n
Introduction rockphysics to changebetween any two ellbctivepressLces P.s1 and P"12con be conveniently written its:
V p ( & r r z ) :Y p ( P . l r ) l
V s ( P " t n ):
whereAp, As, Pgp,and P115 empiricalconstants. write separate are We equations Vp fbr and Vs to emphasize that they can havedifferentpressure sensitivities. example,we For often observein the laboratory that dryrock VplVs increases with eff'ectivepressure.
We know of no systematicrelation betweenthe parameters a rock's prsssure in (1.19). dependence. in equation as andtherock type.age.ordepth.Hence. sitespeci calibration recommended. fic is
29 
1.4 Pressure effects velocity on When calculatingthesefluid effects,it is obviously critical to use appropriate fluicl properties'To our knowledge,the Batzle anclWang (lgg2)empirical fbrmulas represent the best summaryof publishedfluid ilata for use in seismicfluid substitution analysis. It is possiblethat some oil companieshave internal proprietarydata that are equally good alternatives.
Rock physics results regarding pore pressure ' The elastic frame efl'ects are important fbr 4D seismic monitoring of manmade changes pore pressure in during reservoirproduction. ' Numerousauthorshave shown that thesereversible elasticstressand pore pressure elfects can be describedusing crack and grain contact models. Nevertheless, our ability to predict the sensitivityto pressure from first principlesis poor. The current stateo1theart requiresthat we calibratethe pressure dependence velocity with of core measurements. ' Since the pressure dependence that we seek resultsfrom mrcrocracks, must we be aware that at leastpart of the sensitivityof velocity to pressure that we observein the lab is the resultof damageto the core.Therefore, we believethat laboratorymeasurements shouldbe interpreted an upperboundon pressure as sensitivity, comparecl with what we might seein the field. ' Permanentpore collapse during production has been studieclextensively in rock mechanics, particularlyto understand changes reservoir of pressure and permeability during productionin chalks.However,we are not awareof much work quantifying the corresponding seismicvelocity changes. These must be measured cores fbr on the reservoirsof interest. ' overpressuretends to lower seismic velocitiesby retardingnormal porosity loss, irr the same senseas the reversible fiame effectsof pore pressure discussed above. Nevertheless, theseresultfrom entirelydifrerentmechanisms anrj the twcl shouldnot be confused. ' A few authors claim to understand the relation between overpressureand porosity fiom "first principles." we believe that porositypressure relatronscan be developed that havegreatpredictivevalue,but the most reliable of thesewill be empirical. ' The effect of pore pressure on fluids is opposite to the efrect of pore pressure on the rock frame. Increasedpore pressuretends to clecrease rock velocity by softening the elastic rock fiame, but it tends to increaserock velocity by stiffeningthe pore fluids' The net eff'ect whethervelocitywill increase of or clecrease vary with each will situation. Pitfall The decrease the pwave verocity with increasing in pore pressure has been commonly usedfor overpressure detection. However.velocirydoesnot uniquelyindicate pore pressure. because also depends. it among other factors,on pore fluids, satura_ tron, porosity.mineralogy. and textureof rock.
30
I
Introduction rockphysics to
ilrn,
, '1'
31 
r ^ x .
.tt
E +.s
It s' 4
J.C
3
@
:
t
g 2.5
rI
1.5 0
tr^
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Porosity
Porosity
Figure1'17 Velocity vs. porosityfbr watersaturated sanclstones 40MPa. Data are ultrassnic at measlrrements Han (1986). fiom
E E 4000
o
3000
1000
Porosity {percent) Figure 1'18 Comparison carbonate with classical. of data idealized poreshape models. aspect The ratioof theidealized ellipsoidal pores denoted <r. is by
Figure l.l9 again shows velocitiesfrom the sandstones Figure 1.17.The figure in on the left now includes a range of effective pressures: t0, 20, 30, and 40 Mpa. The 5, figure on the right adds velocities for the conesponding gassaturated case.Now we observenearly a factor of 3 variation in Pwave velocity, resulting from a complicated mix of porosity, clay, effective pressure,and saturation.clearly, attemptingto map any one of these parametersfrom Pvelocity alone would produce hopelesslynonunique answers.
32
I
to Introduction rockPhYsics
t t : :1
4.5
@
. o
watersalurated gassaturated
r !
4.5
:E + S r.s
:l
itr*ii,*,H,ttqffiiit\#o
E 4 : S e.s
2.5 2 0,3 0.35 0.4 0
! ry [
! .:tt , l ! ,
:
"'."1
0.15 0.2 Porosity
..;";
0.05
0.1 0.15
0.2 0.25
0.05 0'1
0.4
PorositY
as sumples in s:rndstone relocity vs. prrrositldrtr from lhe satne 1.19 Leli: Sandstone FigUfe the pressures 5, 10,20, 30, and40 MPa, showing additional at 1.17, now with efl'ective but Figure and porosityare variable.Right: Additional scatteror arnbiguitycausedwhen both pressure d t t et o g a : v s .w i l l e rs a t u r a t i o n . ruriutirrn The point we emphasize is that effects on seismic Vp and V5 from porefluid satura
and in can porosity.and shaliness all be comparable magnitude. tion. pore pressure. but separating intermixed.Each of thesecan be an importantreservoirparameter. in of nonuniqueness both 4D studiesand sources them is one of the funclamental unknown reservoircharacterization. Quite simply, thereare many more interesting We measurements' will acoustic are independent thanthere rock and ffuid properfies V5 allows result that combining Vp and discussin the next sectionthe fundamental some of the effects to be seParaled.
33
I
,=r,,,.ffir,!!;ii,*
0 =0.220.36
(Datafrom Han,Blangy,Yin)
4 5 Ye(km/s)
to with porosities, rangingfrom 4c/c 4oc/o, sandstones. @, Figure1.20 V5 vs. Vp fbr watersaturated porosity, fiaction 050ch.Arrow showsdirectionof increasing pressures 550 MPa, clay efl'ective Dataarefiom Han (1986),Blargy(1992)and Yin (1992)' clay,porepressure.
3.5
ooreoressure
a
E
/T!
water
saturation
4 3 Yp(km/s)
of with porosities sandstones, and Figure1,21 Plot of V5 vs. Vp for watersaturated gassaturated directionof increasing 550 MPa, clay fiaction 050%'.Arow shows 44OC/o, effectivepressures to is The trend of saturation peryendicular that for porosity.clay, pore pgrosity,clay, pore pressure. pressure.
The remarkablepattern in Figure l.2l is at the hearl ol virtually all direct hydrothat influence carbondetectionmethods.In spiteof rhe many competingparameters Variations porosity,shain velocities, the nonfluid effectson Vp and V5 are similar. in move dataup and down along the lrends.while changes liness.and pore pressure fluid saturationmove data from one trend to another'(Large changesin lithology,
34 
Introduction rockphysics to
such as to carbonales, also move data lo separate trends.)For reservoirmonitoring. the key result is that changesin saturation and changes pore pressure nearly in are perpendicular the (Vp, Vs) plane. Similar separation pressure in of and saturation effectscan be seenin other relatedattributeplanes(Ro, G) (Landr6,200 l), (pVp, pVs), etc.
1 . 5 . 3 l/pllsrelations
Relations between Vp and Vs are key to the determination of lithology fiom seismic or sonic log data, as well as for direct seismic identification of pore fluids using, for example,AVO analysis. Castagna al. (1993)give an excellentreview of the subject. et There is a wide, and sometimesconfusing, variety of published Vp Vs relationsand Vq prediction techniques,which at first appearto be quite distinct. However, most reduce to the sametwo simple steps: (1) Establish empirical relations among Vp, Vs, and porosity @for one ref'erence pore fluid  most often watersaturated dry. or (2) UseGassmann's 195l) relations mapthese ( to empiricalrelations otherporefluid to states. Although someof the effectivemediummodelspre{ct both P and S velocitiesassuming idealized pore geometries,the fact remains that the mdSfreliable and most often used VpVs relations are empirical fits to laboratory and/or log data.The most useful role of theoreticalmethods is in extending theseempirical relations to difl'erentpore fluids or measurementfiequencies hencethe two stepslisted above. We summarizehere a few of the popular VpVs relations,comparedwith lab and log data sets. Limestones Figure I .22 showslaboratoryultrasonic VpV5 datafbr watersaturated limestonesfrom Pickett (1963), Milholland et al. (1980), and Castagnaetal. (1993), as compiled by Castagna al. (1993). Superimposed, comparison, et for are Pickett's(1963) empirical limestone relation, derived from laboratory core data: Vs: Vpl1.9(km/s)
and a leastsquares polynomial fit to the data derived by Castagnaet al. (1993):
35 
I 7 6 5
I
Limestones watersaturated
4 3 2
1
\'
Y.a
\
water vs= vplt g (1963) Pickett
oo
0.5
1.5
2 (km/s) U5
2.5
3.5
Figure1'22 Plot of 7r, vs. v5 datafbr watersaturated limestones with two empiricaltrends superrmposed. Data compiledby Castagna at. (1993). et
I 7 6
q
Dolomite watersaturated
Pickett (1963)
vs= vPl18
5 4 3 2 1
Castagna etal (1993) l/s=0.5$2Ip0.07776
:
s'
oo
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
/5 ftm/s)
Figure1'23 PIot of vp vs. vs datafcrrwatersaturated dolomiteswith two empiricaltrends superimposed. Data compiledby Castagna at. (1993). et
Dolomite Figure 1.23 shows laboratory Vpv5 data for watersaturated dolomites from Castagna et al' (1993).Superimposed, comparison, Picketr's( 1963) for are dolomite (laboratorv) relati on: Vs : V p / 1 . 8( k m / s )
36 n
Introduction rockphysics to
7 6
c
Sandstones watersaturated
G 4
E
s " 3
Han(1986)
2 1 0
Castagna etal (1993) t/, = 0.8042  0.8559 t/p
l/s = 0.79361/p0.7868
0.5
1.5
2 Ys(km/s)
2.5
3.5
7 6 5 Q ' 4 it s ' 3
<o Y
2 1 0
Castagna elal (1993) l/s = 0.80421/p0.8559
Han(1986) ys = 0.7936yp0.7868
0.5
1.5 2 (km/s) Ys
2.5
3.5
Figure 1,25 Plotof V1, V5data watersaturated with thrceempirical vs. fi)r shales trends Data superirnposed. compiled Casttrgnaal. (19931. by er
For the data shown, the two relationsare essentially equivalent. The data range is too limited to speculate about behaviorat much lower velocity (higherporosity).
Sandstones and shales Figures 1.24 and 1.25 show laboratory VpVs data for watersaturatedsandstones and shalesfiom Castagnaet al. (1985, 1993) and Thomsen (1986) as compiled by
37
'
@
x ^
E d ,
1.5
2.5
Ysftm/s)
trends empirical with sandstones thrce 1.26 Plotof Vpvs. /5 datalbr watersaturated Figure (1992) Yin (1992). and Blangy Data superimposed. fiornHan(1986), linear fit to are for et Castagna al . (l 993). Superimposed, comparison, a leastsqlrares thesedata offered by Castagnaet al. (1993): Vs : 0.8042Yp 0.8559 (km/s) " of Castagna ul. ( 1985),which was derived et
and the empiricalrelationof Han ( 1986), basedon laboratoryultrasonicdata: Vs : 0.1936Yp 0.7868 (km/s)
Of thesethree relations,thclseby Han and by Castagnaet al. areessentiallythe same in and give the bestoverall fit to the sandstones Figure l.24.The mudrock line predicts as it lower V5, because is best suitedfor the most shaly samples, seen systematically in Figure 1.25.Castagnaetol. (1993) suggestthatif the lithology is well known, then one might finetunetheserelationsto slightly lower V5/Vp fbr high shalecontent,and then the higher VslVv in cleanersands.When the lithology is not well constrained, average. et Han and Castagna al.lines give a reasonable Figure I .26 compares laboratory ultrasonic data tor a larger set of watersaturated shaly (d samples : 0.040'30)arefrom a setof consolidated The lowestporosity sands. :0.220.36) (Q studiedby Han ( 1986).The medium porosities Gulf Coastsandstones are poorly consolidatedNorth Sea samplesstudied by Blangy (1992). The veryhigh(Q:0.320.39) are unconsolidated cleanOttawasandstudiedby Yin porositysamples from 0.22 to (1992).The samples clay volume fiactionsfiom 0 to 55%, porosities span
38 
Introduction rockphysics to
Tabfe Regres.siort 1,2 cofficients .fbr the G reenb ergC a staI nLtreIut io ns .for Vs p red ic t io n
Lithology liz lit (tig
0 0.05508 0 0
from 0 to 40 MPa. ln spite of this, there is a remarkably 0.39, and confining pressures well by Han's relation: systematic trend,represented Vs : 0.19 Vp  0.19 (km/s)
Greenberg and Castagna (1992) have given empirical relations for estimating V5 rocks based on empirical, polynomial from Vp in multimineralic, brinesaturated VpVs relations in pure monomineraliclithologies.For each single lithology, they Pwave velocity, estimate Vs: aiz.Vf, + u;1 Vp I ato, where Vp is the watersaturated Swave velocity. Both Vp and V5 are in km/s. and Vs is the predicted watersaturated Their regression coetficients for the individuallithologiesare listed in Table 1.2. at compositelithologies is approximatedby The shearwave velocity in brinesaturated purelithology of of a simpleaverage the arithmeticandharmonicmeans the constituent shearvelocities:
, [ f ,
l L
/ N ,
\ ' l ' l
I I
f 
It':
where L:
Xi : volume fractions of lithologic constituents at : empirical regressioncoefficients Ni : order of polynomial fbr constituenti Vl : *atersaturatedPwave velocity in the jth rock facies multimineralic rock Vs : Swave velocities (km/s) in compositebrinesaturated, Figure 1.27 shows the relations for monomineralic lithologies. Note that the above rocks. To estimate V5 from measured7p lbr other relation is for 1007obrinesaturated fluid saturations,Gassmann'sequation has to be used in an iterative manner.
39
..t12
{ A
..,i.:/
5 s'
Ys(km/s) (1992) for and Castagna Figwe 1.27 RelationsbetweenVp and Vs obtainedby Greenberg lithologies. monomineralic
1.5.4 Shearrelatedattributes
Our rock physics discussionhas been genericallystatedin terms of P and Swave other naturallysuggest velocities(Vp, Vs). However,variousfield acquisitionschemes related attributes.We simplv review a fewdefinitions here. The rock physics bottleneck: only three key seismic parameters Virtually all of rock physicsappliedto the seismicproblem dealswith just threefundamental pieces of intormation: Pwave velocity, Swave velocity, and density. These that are typically measuredin the laboratory,and are the only three seismicparameters theseare generally the most we can ever hope fbr from field data (logs or seismic).An (equivalent velocity dispersion), which is not very to exceptionmight be attenuation well understoodor accuratelymeasured.So this leavesus with at most 3 or 3.5 bits of seismicinformationon which to baseour interpretations. can ever hope to learn about interval properties Similarly, the most a seismologist fiom inverting seismic data is the same 3 or 3.5 bits of information at each location. Any seismic inversionprocessamountsto building a 3D Earth model, with 7p, Vs, and density assignedto every pixel. Synthetic seismogramsare computed from the model and compared with observed seismic wiggles. The Vp, V5, and density values are adjusted until a sufficiently good match is obtained. When the best match is poor, we consider using finer grids, or blame the modeling algorithm, processingartifacts, noise, etc. We never consider that more than Vp, V5, and density are neededto specify
40
I
Introduction rockphysics to
3.5 3
2.5 2 1.5
oas .1 /  .,r/
5 g
0.5 0
0
1^,,"
1 2
l"/
/ ' *
1 0.5
5 6 7 8
3 4 t/p(km/s)
3 4 (km/s) Yp
Figure1,28 Estimatingthe bestcase, errorfreerock properties can be useful.On the lefi, soft, highporosityrocks with good potentialfbr detectingpressure and saturation changes. Thereis a lot of overlapin Vp only, but not in the 2D VpVs plane.On the right, lowporositystifTrocks ofl'ering little chanceof detectingfluid and pressure effects the problem is closeto hopeless, suggesting that specialshearacquisitionwould be a waste.
the rock properties, except for Q or attenuation, or velocity dispersion, or anisotropy. In fact, the wave equation doesn't require anything more. The main reason that many more attributes are sometimes measured is to reveal the peontetric arransenTenl of rock
types. A relateddiscussionis to show how to use calibration data to estimatequantitatively the rock physics uncertaintywhen interpretingdata.For any given reservoir,we believe it is useful to quantify the "bestcase"interpretation uncertainty that we would have if we could measure Vp, Vs, and density errorfree. In this case, the interpretation accuracywill be limited by geologic parameters, suchasmineralogy,pore stiffness,fluid contrasts, shaliness, This is the "intrinsic resolvability"ofthe reservoir etc. parameters. The value of quantifying the bestcaseuncertainty is that we will be able to identify and avoid hopelessinterpretationproblems right from the start. These will be the field problems where no amount of geophysicalinvestmentwill allow accuraterock physics (Figure 1.28). interpretation For most other situations, can estimatehow the uncertaintyworsenscompared we with the best case,( I ) when measurement errors are introduced,(2) when we drop fiom three parametersto two (e.g. Vp, Vs), or (3) when using alternativepairs of attributes (Ro, G, or pVp, pVs, etc.). We believe that this kind rf analysis can be helpful in the decisionmakingprocessto Jind the most costeffective use of shearwavedata. Other shearrelated attributes The attribute pairs in the following short list are all algebraically derivable from Vp, V5, and density,p or their contrasts.
L _ ,
41 4
oo'
3 4 Yp ftm/s)
1 0 Pimpedance
2.5
fluid Good discrimination
{ 2 s" 1.5
ys domains. attribute in are discrimination verysimilar difl'erent and 1.29 Saturation pressure Figure data P andSwave fbr of the data, A. Plotof Vpvs. V5sandstone showing value combining as rocksamples (same Figure l.2l). B. Same as pore and lithology, pressure, saturation separating vs. plotted Vp/V5 V5. as rocksamples C. impedances. Same as in A, butplotted P andSwave Vp, Vs R6, G pVp, pVs AI, EI Ro, Gps X, 1r P and S velocities PP AVO intercept and gradient P and S impedances acoustic impedance,elastic impedance(invertedfrom far off.setstacks) PS AVO gradient, with normal incidencePP reflectivity elastic Lam6 coefficients
data (sameas in Figure l.2l) in three Figure 1.29compareswater and gassaturated domains:(Vp, Vs), (pVp, pV), and(Vplft, ys). All threeplots show a similar diflerent in rocks are well separated all three domains interpretability. Gas vs. watersaturated when the velocwhen velocities are low (rocks are soft), and they are poorly separated ities are high. Also, the trend for changesin pore pressureis essentiallyperpendicular to the trend fbr a changein saturation,in all three domains.
42
I
Introduction rockphysics to Information theory tells us that the intrinsic information in a data setdoesnot change under coordinate transfbrmation.Hence, interpretationof data plotted in the (Vp, Vs) domain should not be differentthan, for example,in the (Vp/V5, Vs) domain. On the of other hand, the problem is different in the (p Vp, p 75) domain, because the additional p a r a m e l e r .e n s i l y . d ignores, The more important practical consideration,which this theoreticalstatement is the difTerencein measurementeffors associatedwith the different domains. For with noise,amplitude pickexample,PP AVO attributes(Ro,G) have errorsassociated ing, phasechanges with offset, velocity estimation,nonhyperbolicmoveout,anisotropy, from comfitting a sin2d function to the amplitudes, etc. Valuesof Vplft determined paring interval times on Pwaveand convertedshearwave stackshaveerrors associated with incorect moveout, migration difficulties, anisotropy,timepicking, correlation of the P and S events,etc. We suspectthat image quality, signaltonoise,and measureamong the difTerent ment uncertainty,in general, are the biggest practical di1}erences types of sheardata. A critical part of acquisition decisionmakingis fbrward modeling to estimatetheseerors.
1.6
1!_
;) e il
A t t h e b o t t o m o f P l a t eI . 3 l , w e p r e d i c t a p o r o s i t y r e d u c t i o n of3o/o,Lhistimeassociated with a deterioration of sorting. we model the velocity change using the sorting trencr, describedby a 'ower Hashinshtrikman bound, as in Figures 1.9 and 1.r0. we see that decreasing porosityincreases the the densityin the sand,and causes much sma,er increasesin Vp and impedance. prate 1.32 shows Fina,y, what happensif the pore pressure changes. this case, In theporepressure
The
,;#;fl.lte

decrines s Mpa (effective,;;;#";;;;r,"i'rr"n' bv r0 Mpa to result virtuallv errect densitv, is no on butfairrylorg.in.r"ures zpand in
1 . 7 . 1 Theoretical models
continuum mechanicsapproximations of the elas_ tic, viscoerastic, poroelastic or propertiesof rocks. Among the most famous are the poroelasticmoders of Biot (1956), who was among the first to formurate the cou_ pled mechanicar behaviorof a porousrock embedded with a linear viscousfluid. The Biot equations recluceto the f'amousGassmann(195 l) relations at zerofiequency; hence,we often refer to "BiotGassmann,,fluid substitution. Biot (r962) generalized The theoreticalmodels are primarily
44
II
Introduction rockphysics to his fbrmulation to include a viscoelastic frame, which was later pursuedby Stoll and Bryan (1970). The "squirt model" of Mavko and Nur (.19i5) and Mavko and Jizba (1991) quantifieda grainscale fluid interaction,which contributedto the fiame viscoelasticity. Dvorkin and Nur (1993) explicitly combinedBiot and squirt mechanisms in their "Bisq" model. Elasticmodelstendto be ( 1) inclusionmodels,(2) contactmodels,(3) computational models, (4) bounds, and (5) transformations. (1) Inclusion models usually approximatethe rock as an elastic solid containing cavities(inclusions),representing pore space.Becausethe inclusion cavitiesare the more compliant than solid mineral, they have the effect of reducing the overall elastic stiffhess of the rock in either an isotropic or anisotropic way. The vast majority of inclusion models assumethat the pore cavitiesare ellipsoidalor "pennyshaped" (Eshelby, 1957; Walsh, 1965; Kuster and Toksoz, 1974; O'Connell and Budiansky, 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 7C h e n g ,1 9 7 8 ,1 9 9 3 ;H u d s o n ,1 9 8 0 ,1 9 8 1 ,t 9 9 0 ; C r a m p i n ,t 9 8 4 ; J o h a n s e n et al., 2002). Berryman ( 1980) generalizedthe selfconsistent description so that both the pores and grains are considered to be ellipsoidal "inclusions" in the composite. Mavko and Nur (1978) and Mavko (1980) also considered inclusioncavitiesthat were nonellipsoidalin shape.Schoenberg (1983) and PyrakNolte et al. (1990a,b)have considered inclusionsin the form of infinite planesof slip or compliance, modelsof as fractures. Inclusion models have contributed tremendousinsights as elastic analogs of rock behavior. However, their limitation to idealized (and unrealistic) pore geometrieshas always madecomparingthe modelsto actualpore microgeometrydifficult. For example, relating inclusion models to variationsof rock texture resulting from different depositional or diagenetic processes not feasible. is Quite simply,if we observea rock in thin section,scanning (SEM) image,or outcrop,we really do not have electronmicroscope a satisfactoryway of choosing model parameters(such as inclusion density and aspect ratio) to describe what we see. Workers often "invert" for the model parametersthat give a good fit to measuredelastic properties,but the question always remains, "How well do theseparameters representreal rock textures?" (2) Contact models approximate the rock as a collection of separategrains, whose elastic properties are determined by the deformability and stiffness of their graintograin contacts. Most of these(walton, 1987;Digby, I 981; Norris and Johnson 1991: , Makse et al., 1999)are basedon the HertzMindlin (Mindlin. 1949)solution for the elastic behavior of two elastic spheresin contact.The key parametersdetermining the stiffnessof the rock are the elastic moduli of the sphericalgrains and the area of grain contact, which results from the deformability of the grains under pressure.Dvorkin and Nur (1996) described effect of adding small amountsof mineral cementat the the c o n t a c t s f s p h e r i c ag r a i n s . o l As with the inclusion models, the spherical contact models have served as useful elastic analogs of soft sediments,but they also suffer from their extremely idealized
45 r
are 1.7 All models wrong. . . some useful are geometries.They are not easy to extend to realistic grain shapes,or distributions of grain size. Furthermore, the most rigorous part of the contact models is the formal description of a single graintograin contact. To extrapolatethis to a random packing about the number of contactsper grain, and makessweepingassumptions of spheres the distribution of contact fbrces throughout the composite. (3) Computational models area fairly recentphenomenon. these,the actualgrainIn pore microgeometry is determined by careful thinsection or CTscan imaging. This geometryis represented a grid, and the elastic,poroelastic,or viscoelasticbehavioris by or computed by "brute force," using finiteelement,finitedifl'erence, discreteelement of modeling. Clear advantages thesemodels are the freedom fiom geometric idealizations, and the ability to elastically quantify featuresobservedin thin section.A second, models,which older class of computationalcontactmodels are the discreteelement grains in a sofi attempt to simulate the simultaneousinteractions of many fieebody sediment. (4) Bounds, such as the VoigtReuss or HashinShtrikman boundspresentedin this chapter are, in our opinion, the "silent heroes" of rock models. They are extremely robust and relatively free of idealizationsand approximations,other than representing the rock as an elastic composite. Originally, bounds were treated only as describing the limits of elastic behavior; some even consideredthem of only limited usefulness. However, as shown in Chapters I and2, they have turned out to be valuable "mixing laws" that allow accurateinterpolaticn of sorting and cementingtrends,as well as being and to the rigorouslycorrectequations describesuspensions fluid mixtures. (5) Transformations include models such as the Gassmann(195l) relationsfor fluid substitution, which are relatively fiee of geometric assumptions.The Gassmann relations take measured 7p and V5 at one fluid state and predict the Vp and V5 at a anotherfluid state.Beryman and Milton (1991) presented geometryindependent schemeto predict fluid substitutionin a compositeof two porous media having separate mineral and dryframe moduli. Mavko et al. (1995) derived a geometryindependent transformationto take hydrostatic velocity vs. pressuredata and predict stressinduced dry a anisotropy.Mavko andJizba ( I 99 I ) presented transformationof measured velocity vs. pressureto predict velocity vs. frequency in fluidsaturatedrocks.
1.7.2 Empiricalmodels
to is The approach generally assume Empiricalmodelsdo not requiremuch explanation. some function form and then determine coefficients by calibrating a regression to for data. Some of the best known are Han's ( 1986) regressions velocityporosityclay (1992')relations for VpV5, and the the behavior in sandstones, GreenbergCastagna Vpdensity relations of Gardner et al. (1914). A particularly popular form of empirical approach is to use neural networks as a way to determine nonlinear relations among the various parameters.
46 
Introduction rockphysics to Empirical relations sometimes are disguised theoretical. example,the popular as For model of Xu and White ( 1995)for Vs prediction in shaly sandsis basedon the KusterTokscizellipsoidal inclusion formulation. One unknown aspectratio is assignedto represent compliantclay pore space, the and a secondunknownaspect ratio is assigned to representthe stiff'ersandpore space.These aspectratios are determinedempirically by calibratingto trainingdata.In other words,this is an empiricalmodel, in which the function form of the regressionis taken fiom an elastic model. It is useful to remember that all empirical relations involve this twostep process of a modeling step to determine the functional fbrm fbllowed by a calibration step to determine the empirical coefficients.We sometimesforget that the common linear regression involves a very deliberatemodeling step of deciding that there is a linear relationbetweenthe two variables.
47
I
are 1.7 All models wrong. . . some useful are It startedwith Han's empirical discovery (Chapter l) that velocityporosity in shaly sandscould be well describedby a set of parallel contours of constantclay. Amos Nur noted that each ofthese contours had high and lowporosity interceptsthat had a clear physical interpretation:in the limit of zero porosity,any model shouldrigorously take on the propertiesof pure mineral, while in the limit of high porosity (the critical porosity), which the rock should lall apart.When a rock is falling apart,it becomesa suspension, EventuallyHan's contourswere is rigorously modeled with a lower bound equation. replacedby modified upper bound.r(Chapters I and 2), partly becausethey fit the data we betterover a large rangeofporosities, and partly because could heuristically defend that thesemodified upperboundsdescribedthediagenetic them. We cameto understand or cementationtrend for sedimentaryrocks. We eventuallyfbund thatamodified loyverbound (ChaptersI and2) was an excellent description<>f sorting,trend in velocityporosity. Again, this was more of an empirithe cal observation,aestheticallysymmetric to the modified upperbound,but not rigorously def'endable. Jack Dvorkin introduced the friable sandmodel (Chapter 2), which usesa combinedwith a clean,wellsortedsands, elasticcontactmodel to describe theoretical to interpolatetheseto lower porosity, poorly sorted sands. modified lower bound In summary, the rock physics modeling approach presentedthroughout this book is the one that we have fbund works well. We avoid overmodeling with too much that fbllow from theory, fiankly, becausewe have lost patiencewith model parameters We have also assuming spheresand ellipsoids, rather than from geologic processes. found it dangerous to become attached to meticulously derived theoretical models, which can never approachthe complexity of nature.At the sametime, we like to honor As they make the modelsuniversal. time goeson, it almost physicalprinciples, because seernsthat we throw away more and more equations,and replacethem with clever use of various bounds. Another important driver in our approachis our desire to discover, understand,and quantifv the elastic properties of geologic prutcesses. We hope that the following chapterswill not only illustrate this modeling approach, but also iustitv it.