Geological Fracture detection -Geomage

of 53/53
MultiFocusing Diffraction Imaging (MFDI)
  • date post

    13-Dec-2014
  • Category

    Technology

  • view

    578
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

description

http://www.geomage.com Predict fracture swarms and small offset faults using conventional seismic data

Transcript of Geological Fracture detection -Geomage

  • 1. MultiFocusing Diffraction Imaging(MFDI)

2. Outline Introduction and theory Numerical model Case studies Case 1 Mediterranean Case 2 integrated study 1 Case 3 integrated study 2 3. Theory 4. Conventional NMOX source V 1 1R receiver V 2 2offset offsettimeBefore NMO correction After NMO correction 5. 2D MultiFocusing 3 parametersCRE radius & CEE radius and emergence angle 6. Diffraction - definitionobstaclewavefront 7. Why diffraction? strong need for small-scale natural fracture andfault detection seismic wavefront contains certain fractureinformation, difficult to extract diffraction, key to higher resolution 8. MultiFocusing diffraction imaging (MFDI) MF imaging stacks large number of traces andincreases S/N ratio weak seismic events are enhanced diffraction energy contains important informationbut is weak and sensitive to noise MF diffraction imaging methodology increasesdiffraction S/N ratio 9. Diffraction stacking a special case ofMultiFocusing stackingDiffraction moveout coincides with MultiFocusing moveout when thereflection interface shrinks to a point, i.e., when RCRE = RCEE. 10. Outline Introduction and theory Numerical model Case studies Case 1 Mediterranean Case 2 integrated study 1 Case 3 integrated study 2 11. Numerical diffraction modelfractures 20 km 12. Fracture density increases along modellength Size of fracture: 1 x 0.3 meter fracturesdepth (m)distance (m) 13. 2D-model MultiFocusing stack 14. 2D-model MultiFocusing post-stackmigration 15. 2D-model MultiFocusing diffractionstack 16. 2D-model MultiFocusingdiffraction post-stack migration 17. Outline Introduction and theory Numerical model Case studies Case 1 Mediterranean Case 2 integrated study 1 Case 3 integrated study 2 18. Case study 1: geology 19. Geomage MultiFocusing structure stack 20. Geomage MultiFocusing diffraction stack 21. MultiFocusing migrated diffraction stack evaporitesdiffraction values in color on migrated MF stack 22. Geomage MultiFocusing diffraction stack 23. MultiFocusing diffraction velocities smoothed velocity corrected velocity from MF processing from MF diffractions m/s 24. Outline Introduction and theory Numerical model Case studies Case 1 Mediterranean Case 2 integrated study 1 Case 3 integrated study 2 25. Integrated diffraction case study 1Goal predict fractured zones within unconventionalreservoir onshore Europeformation: oil-shaleaverage thickness: 40 mwell data: log data of six wellswith old and poor logs incomplete well tests key information on twowells kept back as blindtest 26. Integrated diffraction case study 1formation: oil-shaleaverage thickness: 40 m seismic data diffraction amplitudes attributes 27. Project scope seismic structural interpretation, seismicattribute analysis MultiFocusing diffraction imaging petrophysical analysis and well loginterpretation clusters and statistical analysis geological review and conclusion 28. Seismic PSTM amplitudesWell A Well B Well C 29. Horizon mapstime mapdepth map ? ?? ? 30. Temperature map at reservoirtemperature (degrees C) 135Well B 130 125130 120 115Well C 1101003105 100Well A 139 95 90 85 80 75 70 70 31. Pressure map at reservoir 460 460Well B 440 pressure (PSI) 420 400 380 360Well C3 340 340 320Well A 300 280 260 240 220 180 200 180 32. Well-to-seismic ties reservoir reservoir Max.Corr = 0.82 Max.Corr = 0.79 33. PSTM in background, diffraction image incolor Well A Well Bincreasing evidence of fracturing and facies change in areas of uplift and compression 34. PSTM in background, diffraction image incolor increasing evidence offracturing and facies change inareas of uplift and compression 35. of fracturesadditionalPetrophysical results and diffractionmeabilityTrace of Diffractionp_ nk imagetrace along well pathsUS-7 APS Lithology indexResistivity from tool VSH with big and short Parametr of fractures radius of investigation Truth Formation and additional NGK60PZresistivity permeabilityTrace of Diffraction GR BK Flush zone resistivityKp_nkimage Q 16=3 / . . 36. Diffraction amplitudes and well resultsdiffraction image horizon map production rate vs diffraction amplitude B C Aproduction rate diffraction amplitude correlation coefficient = 0.7 37. Diffraction amplitudes and well resultsdiffraction image horizon map in situ porosity vs diffractionamplitude B 80 y = 33.229ln(x) + 26.969 R = 0.8827 70 y = 22.734ln(x) + 21.653in situ porosity (%) 60R = 0.8434B C 50y = 32.477ln(x) + 30.932AR = 0.8434 40Qsr 30 C AQ2 20Q3 m u o n L v a e r l i 10 00 12 3 4Diffraction image, .diffraction amplitude average correlation coefficient: 0.85 38. Attribute horizon maps around various welllocations composite map: first derivative ofenvelope, diffraction amplitude,temperature, pressurecalculated in situ porosity map BBB C C C A A A 39. Outline Introduction and theory Numerical model Case studies Case 1 Mediterranean Case 2 integrated study 1 Case 3 integrated study 2 40. Integrated diffraction case study 2Goal predict fractured zones within unconventionalreservoir, onshore Americas100041300222W400formation: oil shale Resistivity andPropertiesPorosities Param ether of fractures Paramether of fracturesParam ether of fracturesn imp D of flush zoneDEN KPnk_gkKPfrac2DIFR2DDIV100 KPfrac90 10 7000 21000Dzona2 23002900 00.2 00.001 0 0.014 0 0.001 LIT PE 5 10DTKPfrac1KPfrac4 KPfrac111 5 0 10 MD, RES_DEP 150 300 00.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 GRaverage thickness: 11 m 02000 GR KPfrac6 KPfrac10 0 500 RES_MED 0 5000 0.0001 00.001 DEN 02000 den_correctSEISMIC2300 2900 RES_SLW 23002900 -8000 8000 020002480well data:2500 six wells were within the25202540survey limits 2560 only five could be used2580 old wells with26002620incomplete information2640 D flash zone 41. Integrated diffraction case study 2Goal predict fractured zones within unconventionalreservoir, onshore Americasformation: oil shaleaverage thickness: 11 mseismic data amplitudes attributes diffraction amplitudes diffraction velocities 42. Project scope diffraction imaging seismic attribute analysis petrophysical analysis and well loginterpretation clusters and statistical analysis geological review and conclusion 43. Seismic arbitrary PSTM amplitude section Well A Well B Well C 44. Time map at main target interval 45. Seismic-to-well tieWell D 46. PSTM amplitudes around target horizonmain horizon minus 30 main horizon minus 12msmsF FC CB BA A 47. Petrophysical analysiscalculated fracturing 100052700124W400Resistivity and D of flush zonePorosity, Litology and clayness Paramether of fracturesTraces of seismic attributes, Impedance, Vrelationship (logs)Dzona2VSH KPfrac516010 1E-5SEISMIC MD,RES_DEP KPnk_gkDIFR -900090000 1950 0 0.1 0 0.01 im pRES_MED 10000 250000 1950dV0.9 1dVs_p0 1 2688 2700 depth (m) 2712 2724 2736 2748 2760 2772 2784 48. Cross-plot, calculated in situ porosityand diffraction in situ porosity (%)correlation coefficient: 0.9diffraction amplitude 49. Diffraction interpretationdiffraction amplitudemain horizon -12 ms secondary target 50. Integrating digital elevation model (DEM)anomaly not caused by surface conditionDEM diffraction amplitude 51. Integrating digital elevation model (DEM)anomaly possibly caused by surface condition.DEM diffraction amplitude 52. Summary three case studies petrophysical analysis natural fracturing,in situ porosity MF diffraction amplitude - calibrate to wells calculate seismic attributes all data types integrated 53. Conclusions correlation between diffraction amplitudes andnatural fractures prediction of fracture swarms in tight shales integrating other data types enhances fracture-prediction accuracy