FT_CHADBOURNE_3D. Nomenclature AI Ft/S*Gm/C3 Acoustic Impedance BRIT - Brittleness (Function of Young’s Modulus and PR) BVW V/VBulk Volume Water (PHIE.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

BASIC PETROPHYSICAL FORMULAE

Advertisements

Electrical resistivity measurements and their uses in marine soils.

Title Petrophysical Analysis of Fluid Substitution in Gas Bearing Reservoirs to Define Velocity Profiles – Application of Gassmann and Krief Models Digital.

2014 RMS-AAPG Luncheon, Oct 1st, Denver, CO

LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF POROSITY

3-D Fault Visualization with Fracture Swarms

Important for : Conversion from traveltime to depth Check of results by modeling Imaging of the data (migration) Classification and Filtering of Signal.

EAS 430: Petroleum Geology

Lecture items Neutron log * Definition. * Types

Lecture items - Electric Properties of Rocks. - Factors affecting resistivity of reservoirs - Electrical Logs (Self Potential log, Conventional resistivity.

Lecture items Sonic log * Definition. * Types * Units & Presentation.

Pioneer Natural Resources

FT_CHADBOURNE_3D. Nomenclature AI Ft/S*Gm/C3 Acoustic Impedance BRIT - Brittleness (Function of Young’s Modulus and PR) BVW V/VBulk Volume Water (PHIE.

Unconventional Petrophysical Analysis in Unconventional Reservoirs

Some basic Log interpretation

Course 4: Using AdvancedWell Editor Tools. Log curves are resampled.

Elastic Inversion Using Partial Stack Seismic Data: Case Histories in China.

Log Analysis Using Microsoft Excel® Focus on the Marcellus

1 A Time-Lapse Seismic Modeling Study for CO2 Sequestration at the Dickman Oilfield Ness County, Kansas Jintan Li April 28 th, 2010.

A Petrophysical Comparison of the Barnett and Woodford Shales Jeff Kane Bureau of Economic Geology PBGSP Annual Meeting February 26-27, 2007.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PWLS MNEMONICS IN FINDER UNDER EPINET by OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

Quantico Energy Solutions LLCConfidential1 DensityCompressionalShear Poisson’s Ratio Young’s Modulus Reservoir Quality TOCLithology Thermal Maturity Effective.

Introduction to Resistivity Logging

Core Studies: High Resolution Core Photography & Spectral Gamma-Ray Logging Matthew Erenpreiss Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological.

Geol 4068 Class presentation to accompany reading of Chapter 2- Waves in Fluids Elements of 3D Seismology, 2nd Edition by Christopher Liner September 6,

POROSITY DETERMINATION

Typical modern down-hole wireline equipment

The following discussions contain certain “forward-looking statements” as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 including, without.

1 RPSEA Project – Facies probabilities from seismic data in Mamm Creek Field Reinaldo J Michelena Kevin Godbey Patricia E Rodrigues Mike Uland April 6,

Electrical Properties

A Petrophysically valid Xu- White Velocity Model Andy May March 19, 2014.

Uncertainty in AVO: How can we measure it? Dan Hampson, Brian Russell

Seismic Data Driven Reservoir Analysis FORT CHADBOURNE 3-D Coke and Runnels Counties, TX ODOM LIME AND GRAY SAND.

Thesis Topic An Integrated Petrophysical Study Using Well Logging Data for Evaluation of a Gas Field in The Gulf of Thailand Committee member : Dr. Pham.

Seismic Petrophysics Andy May April 14, Rock Physics Determine the in-situ acoustic properties of the reservoir and surrounding rocks and their.

DSI* Dipole Shear Sonic Imager

Childers Cove 1 Quicklook Petrophysics. Depth corrected Uncorrected Waarre Deeper Sand Nomenclature used in this document.

Well Log Interpretations of Miscellaneous Oklahoma Reservoirs By Richard Andrews March 2009.

Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting The Stanford VI-E Reservoir: A Synthetic Data Set for Joint Seismic-EM Time- lapse Monitoring Algorithms Jaehoon.

Civil Engineering Department College of Engineering Course: Soil and Rock Mechanics (CE 260) Lecturer: Dr. Frederick Owusu-Nimo.

Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 20 Apr 2016

Erno Takacs 1, Zoltan Hajnal 1, Bhaskar Pandit 1 1 Department of Geological Sciences, U of S ______________________________________________________ Joint.

Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 26 Feb 2016 © A.R. Lowry 2016 For Mon 29 Feb: Burger (§8.4) Last Time: Industry Seismic Interpretation Seismic.

LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF POROSITY

Seismic Data Driven Reservoir Services FORT CHADBOURNE 3-D Coke and Runnels Counties,TX ODOM LIME AND GRAY SAND.

A depth trend tool to assist the interpretation of seismic amplitudes Trond Anders Seland, Statoil Force seminar, NPD, Stavanger 28 th September, 2004.

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES FOR RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

University of Kerala, India.

Amit Suman and Tapan Mukerji 25th SCRF Annual Meeting May 9 – 11, 2012

INSTRUCTOR © 2017, John R. Fanchi

What is Well Logging?

Pitfalls in Rock Properties and Lithology Prediction in Dolomite

Small scale reflection seismology

Lithology Fluids Total Porosity Modeled Stack Sands Shale

Porosity Logs Shale Density porosity (solid black line)

Seismic Response What causes a seismic response?

Resistivity Logs High deep resistivity means:

Step 3: Resistivity Logs

Step 1: Lithology Using the Gamma Ray log, define a shale base line

Elements of 3D Seismology: Introduction to Interpretation

PETROPHYSICS: ROCK/LOG/SEISMIC CALIBRATION

PERMEABILITY . Some slides in this section are from NExT PERF Short Course Notes, Some slides appear to have been obtained from unknown primary sources.

The Convolution Method

A Geologic Model 1m 75 m Perm 250 mD Sand Shale 0.1 mD 50 m Slide 16

PERMEABILITY . Some slides in this section are from NExT PERF Short Course Notes, Some slides appear to have been obtained from unknown primary sources.

Electrical Properties

POROSITY DETERMINATION FROM LOGS Most slides in this section are modified primarily from NExT PERF Short Course Notes, However, many of the NExT.

Upscaling Petrophysical Properties to the Seismic Scale

VARIATION OF VELOCITY WITH LITHOLOGY

Please go to: Slide Show Menu View Show

Presentation transcript:

FT_CHADBOURNE_3D

Nomenclature AI Ft/S*Gm/C3 Acoustic Impedance BRIT - Brittleness (Function of Young’s Modulus and PR) BVW V/VBulk Volume Water (PHIE * SWE) DIFFND V/V Difference NPHI and DPHI DLRMR GPA*Gm/C3Difference LambdaRHO – MuRHO DPHI V/VDensity Porosity DTC US/FCompressional Interval Travel Time EI** Ft/S*Gm/C3Elastic Impedance at ** Degrees ERHO GPA*Gm/C3Young’s Modulus * RHOB (Older slides used RHOYM instead of ERHO) LAMBDA GPAIncompressibility (Lame’) LAMDA_RHO GPA*Gm/C3Incompressibility attributes MU GPARigidity (shear modulus) MURHO GPA*Gm/C3Rigidity attributes NPHIV/VNeutron Porosity PE* Barns/ElectronPhoto Electric Effect PHIE V/VEffective Porosity PHIT V/VTotal Porosity PR-Poisson’s Ratio RATIOND -Ratio of NPHI to DPHI RHOB Gm/C3Bulk Density RLM -Ratio of incompressibility to rigidity SI Ft/S*GmC3Shear Impedance SWE V/VEffective Water Saturation (Shaly-Sand model) SWT V/VTotal Water Saturation (Shaly-Sand model) U_MAA Barns/C3Apparent Matrix Volumetric Cross Section VELC Ft/SCompressional velocity VELS Ft/SShear velocity VOL_** V/VVolumes of various minerals (from MultiMin models) VPVS -Ratio of VELC and VELS YOUNG_MOD6PsiDynamic Young’s Modulus

Lame’ Constants Lambda Rho  Mu Rho  Gas Sand Wet Sand Shale Cemented Sand Carbonates Infers Incompressibility (Fluid) Infers Rigidity (Lithology) (Lithology) LMR analysis

Lame’ Constants Lambda – Mu Difference Lambda/Mu Porous Gas Sands Wet Sands Carbonates LMR analysis Sandstone Line Shales

REFERENCES Passey, Q.R., S. Creaney, J.B. Kulla, F.J. Moretti, and J.D. Stroud, 1990, A practical model for organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p Krief, M., Garat, J., Stellingwerff, J. and Ventre, J., 1990, A petrophysical interpretation using the velocities of P and S waves (full-waveform sonic): The Log Analyst, The Magic of Lamé, Bill Goodway, SEG 2009 Lecture Rick Rickman, Mike Mullen, etal. A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale: SPE

Well Location

FCOLU_01_86

FCOLU_01_86: PR vs AI

FCOLU_01_86: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_01_86: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_01_86: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_08_30

FCOLU_08_30: PR vs AI

FCOLU_08_30: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_08_30: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_08_30: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_A_107

FCOLU_A_107: PR vs AI

FCOLU_A_107: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_A_107: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_A_107: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_A_110

FCOLU_A_110: PR vs AI

FCOLU_A_110: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_A_110: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_A_110: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_51_32

FCOLU_51_32: PR vs AI

FCOLU_51_32: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_51_32: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_51_32: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_08_27

FCOLU_08_27: PR vs AI

FCOLU_08_27: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_08_27: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_08_27: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_08_31

FCOLU_08_31: PR vs AI

FCOLU_08_31: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_08_31: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_08_31: PR vs ERHO

FCOLU_26_18

FCOLU_26_18: PR vs AI

FCOLU_26_18: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

FCOLU_26_18: DLRMR vs RLM

FCOLU_26_18: PR vs ERHO