16.avo
description
Transcript of 16.avo
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
302
The Rock Physics of AVO
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
303
Water-saturated40 MPa
Water-saturated10-40 MPa
Gas andWater-saturated10-40 MPa
L8
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
304
N.1
More than 400 sandstone data points, with porositiesranging over 4-39%, clay content 0-55%, effectivepressure 5-40 MPa - all water saturated.
When Vp is plotted vs. Vs, they follow a remarkablynarrow trend. Variations in porosity, clay, and pressuresimply move the points up and down the trend.
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
305
N.2
Variations in porosity, pore pressure, and shalinessmove data along trends. Changing the pore fluidcauses the trend to change.
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
306
Different shear-related attributes.N.2
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
307
In an isotropic medium, a wave that is incident on aboundary will generally create two reflected waves (oneP and one S) and two transmitted waves. The total sheartraction acting on the boundary in medium 1 (due to thesummed effects of the incident an reflected waves) mustbe equal to the total shear traction acting on the boundary inmedium 2 (due to the summed effects of thetransmitted waves). Also the displacement of a point inmedium 1 at the boundary must be equal to the displace-ment of a point in medium 2 at the boundary.
VP1, VS1, 1
VP2, VS2, 2
1
1
22
Reflected P-wave
Incident P-wave
Reflected S-wave
Transmitted P-wave
Transmitted S-wave
N.4
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
308
By matching the traction and displacement boundaryconditions, Zoeppritz (1919) derived the equationsrelating the amplitudes of the P and S waves:
sin 1( ) cos 1( ) sin 2( ) cos 2( )cos 1( ) sin 1( ) cos 2( ) sin 2( )sin 21( )
VP1VS1
cos 21( )2VS 22VP11VS12VP 2
sin 22( ) 2VS 2VP1
1VS12cos 22( )
cos 21( ) VS1VP1
sin 21( ) 2VP21VP1
cos 22( ) 2VS 21VP1
cos 22( )
RppRpsTppTps
=
sin 1( )cos 1( )sin 21( )
cos 21( )
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
309
AVO - Shuey's Approximation
P-wave reflectivity versus angle:
Intercept Gradient
R ( ) = R0 + ER0 +
1 ( )2
sin2 + 12
VPVP
tan2 sin2 [ ]
R0 12
VPVP
+
E = F 2 1 + F( )1 21
F = VP /VPVP /VP + /
VP = VP 2 VP1( )VS = VS 2 VS1( ) = 2 1( )
VP = VP2 + VP1( ) / 2VS = VS2 + VS1( ) / 2 = 2 + 1( ) / 2
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
310
P-wave reflectivity versus angle:
Intercept Gradient
R ( ) = R0 + 12VPVP
2VS2
VP2
+ 2 VSVS
sin2
+12
VPVP
tan2 sin2 [ ]
R0 12
VPVP
+
VP = VP 2 VP1( )VS = VS 2 VS1( ) = 2 1( )
VP = VP2 + VP1( ) / 2VS = VS2 + VS1( ) / 2 = 2 + 1( ) / 2
AVO - Aki-Richard's approximation:
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
311
AVO Response
P-Velocity Poisson ratio AVO response contrast contrast
negative negative increase negative positive decrease positive negative decrease positive positive increase
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
312
Vp-Vs Relations
There is a wide, and sometimes confusing, variety ofpublished Vp-Vs relations and Vs prediction techniques,which at first appear to be quite distinct. However, mostreduce to the same two simple steps:1. Establish empirical relations among Vp, Vs, and porosityfor one reference pore fluid--most often water saturated ordry.2. Use Gassmanns (1951) relations to map these empiricalrelations to other pore fluid states.Although some of the effective medium models predict both Pand S velocities assuming idealized pore geometries, the factremains that the most reliable and most often used Vp-Vsrelations are empirical fits to laboratory and/or log data. Themost useful role of theoretical methods is extending theseempirical relations to different pore fluids or measurementfrequencies. Hence, the two steps listed above.
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
313
N.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
SandstonesWater Saturated
Vp (k
m/s
)
Vs (km/s)
mudrockV s = .8621Vp- 1 . 1 7 2 4
Castagna et al. (1993)V s = .8042Vp- . 8 5 5 9
Han (1986)V s = .7936Vp- . 7 8 6 8
(after Castagna et al., 1993)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ShalesWater Saturated
Vp (k
m/s
)
Vs (km/s)
mudrockV s = .8621 Vp- 1.1724
Castagna et al. (1993)V s = .8042Vp- . 8 5 5 9
Han (1986)V s = .7936Vp- . 7 8 6 8
(after Castagna et al., 1993)
N.5
MudrockVs = .86 Vp - 1.17
Han (1986)Vs = .79 Vp - 0.79
Castagna et al. (1993)Vs = .80 Vp - 0.86
MudrockVs = .86 Vp - 1.17
Han (1986)Vs = .79 Vp - 0.79
Castagna et al. (1993)Vs = .80 Vp - 0.86
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
314
012345678
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
LimestonesWater Saturated
Vp (k
m/s
)
Vs (km/s)
V s = Vp/ 1 . 9Pickett (1963)
Castagna et al. (1993)V s = -.05508 VP2 + 1.0168 Vp - 1.0305
water (after Castagna et al.,1993)
012345678
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
DolomiteWater Saturated
Vp (k
m/s
)
Vs (km/s)
Castagna et al. (1993)V s = .5832Vp - . 0 7 7 7 6
Pickett (1963)V s = Vp/ 1 . 8
(after Castagna et al., 1993)
N.6
Pickett(1963)Vs = Vp / 1.9
Castagna et al. (1993)Vs = -.055 Vp2 + 1.02 Vp - 1.03
Pickett(1963)Vs = Vp / 1.8
Castagna et al. (1993)Vs = .58 Vp - 0.078
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
315
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Shaly SandstonesWater Saturated
Vp-sat c>.25Vp-sat c 25 % Vs= .8423Vp-1 .099
clay < 25 %Vs= .7535Vp- .6566
mudrock Vs= .8621Vp-1 .1724
(Data from Han, 1986)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Shaly SandstonesWater Saturated (hf)
Vp-sat Phi>.15Vp-sat Phi 15 % Vs = .7563Vp-.6620
porosity < 15 %Vs = .8533Vp-1.1374
mudrock Vs = .8621Vp-1.1724
(Data from Han, 1986)
N.7
MudrockVs = .86 Vp - 1.17
Clay < 25%Vs = .75 Vp - 0.66
Clay > 25%Vs = .84Vp-1.10
porosity > 15%Vs = .76Vp - 0.66
porosity < 15%Vs = .85 Vp - 1.14
MudrockVs = .86 Vp - 1.17
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
316
Dry Poissons Ratio Assumption
02468
10121416
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
clay < 10%clay > 10%
Vs2
dry
Vp2 dry
= 0.01 = 0.1
= 0.2
= 0.3
= 0.4
Shaly Sandstones - Dry
The modified Voigt Average Predicts linear moduli-porosity relations.This is a convenient relation for use with the critical porosity model.
These are equivalent to the dry rock Vs/Vp relation and the dry rockPoissons ratio equal to their values for pure mineral.
The plot below illustrates the approximately constant dry rockPoissons ratio observed for a large set of ultrasonic sandstonevelocities (from Han, 1986) over a large rance of effective pressures (5< Peff < 40 MPa) and clay contents (0 < C < 55% by volume).
N.8
Kdry = K0 1c
dry = 0 1
c
VSVP
dry rock
VSVP
mineral
dry rock mineral
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
317
Kriefs Relation (1990)The model combines the same two elements:1. An empirical Vp-Vs- relation for water-saturatedrocks, which is approximately the same as the criticalporosity model.2. Gassmanns relation to extend the empiricalrelation to other pore fluids.Dry rock Vp-Vs- relation:
where is Biots coefficient. This is equivalent to:
where
and Kf are two equivalent descriptions of the pore spacestiffness. Determining vs. or K vs determines therock bulk modulus Kdry vs .
Krief et al. (1990) used the data of Raymer et al. (1980) toempirically find a relation for vs :
Kdry = Kmineral 1 ( )
1Kdry
=1K0
+K
1K
=1v p
dv pd
PP = constant
; =dv pdV
PP = constant
=KdryK
1 ( ) = 1 ( )m ( ) where m ( ) = 3 / 1( )
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
318
Assuming dry rock Poissons ratio is equal to themineral Poissons ratio gives
N.9
Kdry = K0 1 ( )m ( )
dry = 0 1( )m ( )
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
319
Expressions for any other pore fluids are obtained fromGassmanns equations. While these are nonlinear, theysuggest a simple approximation:
where VP-sat, VP0, and Vfl are the P-wave velocities of thesaturated rock, the mineral, and the pore fluid; and VS-satand VS0 are the S-wave velocities in the saturated rockand mineral. Rewriting slightly gives
where VR is the velocity of a suspension of minerals in afluid, given by the Reuss average at the critical porosity.This modified form of Kriefs expression is exactlyequivalent to the linear (modified Voigt) K vs and vs relations in the critical porosity model, with the fluid effectsgiven by Gassmann.
which is a straight line (in velocity-squared) connecting themineral point ( ) and the fluid point ( ). A moreaccurate (and nearly identical) model is to recognize thatvelocities tend toward those of a suspension at highporosity, rather than toward a fluid, which yields themodified form
VP02 , VS02 Vfl2 , 0
VP sat2 Vfl2
VS sat2=VP 02 Vfl2
VS02
VP sat2 VR
2
VS sat2=VP 0
2 VR2
VS02
VP sat2 = Vfl
2 + VS sat2 VP 0
2 Vfl2
VS 02
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
320
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20
Vp-Vs Relation in Dry andSaturated Rocks
V p2
(km
/s)2
Vs2 (km/s)2
saturated
dry
Sandstones mineral point
fluid point
N.10
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
321
N.11
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 4 8 12 16
Vp-Vs Relation in Sandstoneand Dolomite
V p2
(km
/s)2
Vs2 (km/s)2
Sandstone
Dolomite
mineralpoints
fluid points
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
322
VS = 12 Xii = 1
LaijVPjj = 0
Ni+ Xii = 1
LaijVPjj = 0
Ni 1 1
Greenberg and Castagna (1992) have given empiricalrelations for estimating Vs from Vp in multimineralic, brine-saturated rocks based on empirical, polynomial Vp-Vsrelations in pure monomineralic lithologies (Castagna etal., 1992). The shear wave velocity in brine-saturatedcomposite lithologies is approximated by a simple averageof the arithmetic and harmonic means of the constituentpure lithology shear velocities:
Castagna et al. (1992) gave representative polynomialregression coefficients for pure monomineralic lithologies:
Regression coefficients for pure lithologies with Vp and Vsin km/s:
Xi = 1i = 1
L
VS = ai2VP2 + ai1VP + ai0 (Castagna et al. 1992)
whereL number of monomineralic lithologic constituent
Xi volume fractions of lithological constituentsaij empirical regression coefficientsNi order of polynomial for constituent iVp, Vs P and S wave velocities (km/s) in composite brine-
saturated, multimineralic rock
Lithology a i2 a i1 a i0S andstone 0 0.80416 -0.85588Limestone -0.05508 1.01677 -1.03049Dolomite 0 0.58321 -0.07775Shale 0 0.76969 -0.86735
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
323
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5
SandstoneL imestoneDo l om i t eS h a l e
Vp (
km/s
)
Vs (km/s)
Note that the above relation is for 100% brine-saturated rocks.To estimate Vs from measured Vp for other fluid saturations,Gassmanns equation has to be used in an iterative manner.In the following, the subscript b denotes velocities at 100%brine saturation and the subscript f denotes velocities at anyother fluid saturation (e.g. this could be oil or a mixture of oil,brine, and gas). The method consists of iteratively finding a(Vp, Vs) point on the brine relation that transforms, withGassmanns relation, to the measured Vp and the unknown Vsfor the new fluid saturation. the steps are as follows:
1. Start with an initial guess for VPb.2. Calculate VSb corresponding to VPb from the empiricalregression.3. Do fluid substitution using VPb and VSb in the Gassmannequation to get VSf.4. With the calculated VSf and the measured VPf, use theGassmann relation to get a new estimate of VPb. Check withprevious value of VPb for convergence. If convergencecriterion is met, stop; if not go back to step 2 and continue.
N.12
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
324
Coefficients for the equation b = aVp2 + bVp + c
L ithology a b c Vp Range (Km/s)
Shale - .0261 .373 1.458 1.5-5.0Sandstone - .0115 .261 1.515 1.5-6.0Limestone - .0296 .461 0.963 3.5-6.4Dolomite - .0235 .390 1.242 4.5-7.1Anhydrite - .0203 .321 1.732 4.6-7.4
Coefficients for the equation b = dVpf
L ithology d f Vp Range(Km/s)
Shale 1.75 .265 1.5-5.0Sandstone 1.66 .261 1.5-6.0Limestone 1.50 .225 3.5-6.4Dolomite 1.74 .252 4.5-7.1Anhydrite 2.19 .160 4.6-7.4
Both forms of Gardners relations applied to log and lab shale data, aspresented by Castagna et al. (1993)
Polynomial and powerlaw forms of the Gardner et al. (1974) velocity-densityrelationships presented by Castagna et al. (1993). Units are km/s andg/cm3.
N.15
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
325
Both forms of Gardners relations applied tolaboratory dolomite data.
N.16
-
Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko
AVO
326
Both forms of Gardners relations applied to laboratory limestone data. Notethat the published powerlaw form does not fit as well as the polynomial. wealso show a powerlaw form fit to these data, which agrees very well with thepolynomial.
Both forms of Gardners relations applied to log and lab sandstone data, aspresented by Castagna et al. (1993).
N.17